Author: Aash Mohammad, COER UNIVERSITY, Roorkee, Haridwar
Abstract
Live-in relationships, once considered socially unacceptable in India, have increasingly gained judicial recognition due to evolving societal norms and constitutional interpretation. Although Indian law does not expressly codify live-in relationships, courts have extended protection to such relationships under the umbrella of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 of the Constitution. Judicial pronouncements have clarified issues relating to legitimacy of children, maintenance, domestic violence, and personal liberty. Recently, the enactment of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Uttarakhand marks a significant legislative intervention by formally recognizing and regulating live-in relationships. This article critically examines the legal status of live-in relationships in India, judicial safeguards provided thereto, and the implications of the Uttarakhand UCC on personal autonomy and privacy.
To the Point
Live-in relationships are not illegal in India
Courts recognize them under Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Partners may claim protection under Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Children born out of such relationships are considered legitimate
Uttarakhand UCC is the first law to statutorily regulate live-in relationships
The debate lies between individual autonomy vs state regulation
Use of Legal Jargon
In legal parlance, a live-in relationship refers to a domestic arrangement resembling marriage without formal solemnization. Such relationships fall within the ambit of consensual cohabitation between adults. Indian courts have relied on doctrines such as constitutional morality, substantive due process, and reasonable classification to determine the legality and protection of such arrangements. The judicial approach has been largely rights-centric, emphasizing privacy, dignity, and personal choice. However, legislative intervention like the Uttarakhand UCC introduces regulatory compliance, raising questions regarding proportionality and state intrusion.
The Proof
Constitutional Framework
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life, which has been expansively interpreted to include.
Right to privacy
Right to dignity
Right to personal autonomy
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court affirmed that personal choices relating to family and relationships fall within the protected zone of privacy.
Statutory Protection
Although no specific law governs live-in relationships, protection is extended through.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – includes relationships “in the nature of marriage.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – maintenance rights under Section 125 in appropriate cases
Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code, 2024.
The Uttarakhand UCC aims to create uniformity and prevent exploitation in live-in relationships. However, mandatory registration raises constitutional concerns:
Possible infringement of the right to privacy
Fear of social stigma due to disclosure
Excessive state control over personal relationships
While the intention to protect vulnerable partners is laudable, any such law must satisfy the tests of reasonableness, proportionality, and constitutional morality. The success of the Uttarakhand UCC will ultimately depend on judicial scrutiny and its practical implementation.
Case Laws
1. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)
The Supreme Court held that living together without marriage is not an offence and falls under the right to life under Article 21.
2. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)
The Court clarified the concept of a “relationship in the nature of marriage” and laid down criteria such as duration, shared household, and social recognition.
3. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)
It was held that not all live-in relationships qualify for legal protection unless they resemble marriage in substance.
4. Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006)
The Court emphasized that adults have the right to live together without interference, reinforcing personal liberty.
5. Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010)
The Supreme Court observed that long-term live-in relationships raise a presumption of marriage under law.
Uttarakhand UCC
While the Uttarakhand UCC aims to bring uniformity and accountability, it has sparked constitutional debate. Mandatory registration of live-in relationships may:
Violate right to privacy
Deter individuals from exercising personal choice
Lead to social surveillance rather than protection
Supporters argue that registration prevents exploitation and abandonment, especially of women. Critics, however, contend that consensual adult relationships should not be subjected to excessive state control.
Thus, the Uttarakhand UCC represents a balancing attempt between social order and individual freedom, though its constitutional validity may be tested in courts.
Comparative Perspective: India vs Other Countries
United States
In the United States, live-in relationships are commonly referred to as cohabitation arrangements. Several states recognize common-law marriages, where long-term cohabitation with intent to marry grants legal status similar to marriage. The approach is largely contractual and voluntary, with minimal state interference.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom recognizes live-in partners as cohabiting couples. Although cohabitation does not equate to marriage, courts grant rights related to property, children, and financial support based on equitable principles. There is no mandatory registration of live-in relationships.
France
France introduced the PACS (Civil Solidarity Pact), allowing couples to register their relationship voluntarily. PACS provides legal and financial benefits while preserving individual autonomy.
India’s Position
India’s approach has primarily been judicial rather than legislative, focusing on protection rather than regulation. The Uttarakhand UCC, however, marks a shift towards compulsory regulation, which contrasts with the voluntary models followed in many other democracies
Conclusion
Live-in relationships in India have evolved from social taboo to constitutionally protected personal choice through progressive judicial interpretation. Courts have consistently emphasized that individual autonomy and dignity cannot be curtailed by societal disapproval. The introduction of the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code represents a significant shift from judicial recognition to legislative regulation. While the objective of preventing exploitation is legitimate, excessive regulation may undermine personal liberty and privacy. A balanced approach that protects vulnerable individuals without intruding into private life is essential. The future legal landscape will depend on how courts harmonize individual freedom with state interests.
FAQS
Q1. Are live-in relationships legal in India?
Yes, they are legal and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Q2. Can a woman in a live-in relationship claim maintenance?
Yes, under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if the relationship is in the nature of marriage.
Q3. Are children born from live-in relationships legitimate?
Yes, courts have recognized such children as legitimate.
Q4. What is special about Uttarakhand UCC regarding live-in relationships?
It mandates registration of live-in relationships, making it the first statutory regulation in India.
Q5. Can the Uttarakhand UCC be challenged?
Yes, on grounds of violation of privacy and personal liberty under the Constitution.
