How Does Law Protect Women In Live-In Relationships?

The Allahabad High Court's recent observation on litigation consolidated the view that society does not make it easy for women in live-ins. There are no specific laws surrounding live-ins. The legitimacy of live-in relationships harps upon Article 19 and Article 21 of our fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. 

Live-ins have been legally accepted by sound jurisprudence over the years. 

As early as 1978, the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad Vs Board of Consolidators ruled, "A strong presumption arises in favour of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin."

Allahabad High Court's judgement in Payal Sharma Vs Nari Niketan ruled in favour of women in live-ins. “Hence, she is a major and she has the right to go anywhere and live with anyone. In our opinion, a man and a woman, even without getting married can live together if they wish. This may be considered immoral by society but it is not illegal." The Supreme Court as per its 2013 ruling also protects women in live-ins under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. 

The 2016 ruling of the Punjab High Court in the Ajay Bhardwaj Vs Jyotsana case held that women in live-ins were eligible for alimony. 

Supreme Court's 2022 judgement in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Another Vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan acknowledged children of women in live-ins as legitimate. The condition of legitimacy rests on the live-in relationship being long-term as opposed to a 'walk-in, walk-out' arrangement. 

Suggested Read: Tauba Tauba! Why Live-in Relationships continue to Make us Uncomfortable

Societal Acknowledgement Of Women In Live-Ins 

Despite the legitimacy guaranteed to women in live-ins by the constitution, the society resorts to its age-old ways when live-ins go awry. 

Commenting on the Shraddha Walkar murder case the Union Minister, Kaushal Kishore said, “Why are they living in live-in relationships? If they have to do so, there should be proper registration. If parents are not willing to publicly support such relationships, you should have a court marriage and then live together. Educated girls should not get into such relationships. They should learn from such incidents (Shraddha murder). They should stay with someone with the approval of their parents.” 

Whenever similar instances of gendered violence crop up, the rising trend has been to victim blame women in live-ins. 

Bashers of women in live-ins are quick to take to their social media handles annihilating a murdered woman's character for exercising their freedom of choice for a live-in relationship. 

"Shameless, heartless, and cruel, blame-the-woman-for-all-problems mentality continues to thrive,” commented Shiv Sena leader Priyanka Chaturvedi, resonating with the views of independent women. 

Granting bail to a man for reneging on marrying the woman he was living with, the Allahabad High Court made the following observations recently. "This is one case where the disastrous consequences of live-in relationship have come on the scene. It is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking off a live-in relationship. The Indian society at large does not recognise such a relationship. The woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge first information report against her live-in partner, like in the present case." 

The institution of marriage remains unquestionable by society despite the prevalence of domestic violence or divorce rates. Yet women in live-ins are far too often on the brunt of humiliation simply for exercising their fundamental right of choice.  

If women in Indian society heeded the Union Minister's words and took the approval of their parents for existing perhaps the crime rates against women in live-ins would not be such a bother. 

The views expressed are the author's own.