Kerala High Court: Law Does Not Recognise Live-In Relationship As Marriage, Couples Living Together By Virtue Of Agreement Can’t Seek Divorce

Jahanvi Agarwal

Recently, the Kerela High Court ruled that live-in relationships are not recognized by the law as marriage. It is a simple agreement where two people choose to live together and is outside the ambit of any personal law or the Special Marriage Act. Such a situation cannot claim marriage or file for divorce.

The court made two observations first, that marriages entered into between parties through contracts are not recognized by law for divorce purposes, and second, that the law only permits parties to divorce if they were wed in accordance with a recognized form of marriage under secular or personal law.

The Division bench of Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that:

“The law recognizes divorce as a means of separating a legal marriage. There may be a situation where the relationship qualifies for the creation of reciprocal obligations or duties elsewhere. But that does not mean that such a relationship can be recognized for the purpose of divorce,”

One Hindu and one Christian who have lived together since 2006 after signing a registered agreement were both parties to an appeal that was being considered by the court. A child was also born to them jointly.

The Family Court denied the appellant’s request for a mutual divorce under the Special Marriage Act on the grounds that the marriage was not legally consummated. So, in opposition to the Family Court’s ruling, the appellants went to the High Court.

As the Family Court can only deal with marriages recognized by law, the Court also found that it lacked the authority to consider such a claim. The Family Court should have ruled that the petition was not maintainable rather than dismissing it on the grounds that the marriage was not solemnized in accordance with the Special Marriage Act, the Court said.

The petition was deemed unmaintainable, so the court ordered the Family Court to return it. It stated in its order that:

‘The parties are given liberty to work out their remedy elsewhere’

Case Name: X v. NIL

Diary Number: 784/2022

Bench: Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas

Click here to Access the Order/Judgement.