top of page
  • Writer's pictureAdmin


~ Shatabdi Nayak

The whole notion of live-in relationship is not as simple as it appears to us but in fact is multi-dimensional bringing along with it many issues and complications but the scope of this blogpost is limited to the laws concerning the protection of women in live in relationships.


The rights of female accomplice in live in relationship are in general secure, credited to the ongoing rules and proposal by the concerned committees. Courts additionally show energetic willingness to ensure the privilege of female accomplice in such relationship as displayed by decisions given in number of cases. The Statute Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has a provision that ensures the protection of a woman in a relationship by marriage and live-in female partner for example relationship in nature of marriage, by reason of being grasped inside the expression "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the Act.


In the case of D. Veluswami v. D. Patchaimmal [1], it was pointed out that to get the advantages emerging from "relationship like marriage", it is important that, "couple must hold themselves out to society as being much the same as life partners, they should be of lawful age to wed, they should be generally able to go into a legitimate marriage, including being unmarried, they should have deliberately lived together and held themselves out to the world as being similar to mates for a critical timeframe."

The Supreme Court in Yamuna Bai v. Anant Rao [2] held that where a man wedded the subsequent time, his second "spouse" had no case to support under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, despite the fact that she may be uninformed of his prior marriage. The Court wouldn't give any acknowledgment to the way that they had lived respectively regardless of whether their marriage was void. The man was permitted to exploit this, in spite of the fact that he had neglected to unveil his prior marriage. The Supreme Court held that it would not allow any rights to the woman in such a live in relationship "of condition".

In the case of Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan [3], the Supreme Court held that if man and woman are living in the same house and have been living together for various years, there will be an assumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that they live as a couple and the off springs destined to them shall not be illegitimate.

In June, 2008, The National Commission for Women suggested to Ministry of Women and Child Development made proposal to include live in female accomplices for the privilege of Section 125 of CrPC. This view was upheld by the judgment in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. Province Of Maharashtra and Others [4]. The positive assessment for live in relationship was similarly favored by the Maharashtrian Government in October, 2008 when it acknowledged the proposition made by Malimath Committee and Law Commission of India which recommended that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for extensively lengthy timespan, she should is entitled to the legitimate status as given to spouse. Nonetheless, as of late it was seen that it is the separated spouse who is treated as a wife with respect to Section 125 of CrPC and if an individual has not been hitched for example the instance of live in accomplices, they can't be separated, and consequently can't guarantee maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

The Apex Court has advanced to shield the live in female accomplice from harassment for dowry. In Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v. State of A.P [5], the respondent used to badger his live in accomplice for dowry. Justice Arjit Pasyat and A.K. Ganguly while witnessing the contention of the respondent that section 498A would not be not applicable to him since he was not hitched to his live in accomplice held that dowry does not have any hidden cause beneath it. It is just a label given to a demand of money in relation to a conjugal relationship. Drawing matches with the law which perceives the authenticity of off springs conceived of void and voidable relationships, it clarified its stand asking: "Can an individual who goes into a conjugal understanding be permitted to take cover behind a distraction to fight that since there was no substantial marriage, the topic of dowry doesn't emerge?"


A significant perception to be noted here is that to perceive the privilege of female accomplices in live in relationship and subsequently the security allowed by means of certain resolutions should be joined by changes in laws of inheritance, adoption, marriage too on the off chance that we move toward legitimization of such relationship. Another highlight to be observed is that response to such relationship was taken to evade the commitments, servitude and lawfulness appended with marriage. Getting such restrictions and commitments even without the conventional cover of marriage will negate the entire thought of opportunity and freedom related with live in connection.

[1]Supra, note 9 [2] (1988) 1SCC 530 [3] AIR 1992 SC 756 [4]Criminal Writ Petition No.2218 Of 2007 [5]Criminal Appeal No. 867 Of 2009


Recent Posts

See All


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page