Introduction
Certain things in our country are believed to be against our culture and rites. Yet we have started to open minds and accept the concept of live-in relationships. This is still believed to be like that a small window of hope. What live-in relationship means is quite simple and still, the negativity associated with it is huge when there is nothing wrong about it. When a man and women decide to cohabit together without wedlock but as a husband and wife, it means they desire a live-in relationship. This is done by them to get a know-how of each other at a better level and to check their compatibility in all spheres of life- whether it be emotional, physical, financial, etc. This is criticized by Indian society a lot as living together without a valid marriage is deemed against our customs. These relationships may lead to a marriage if such intention is sought. But if due to some circumstances they decide to part ways, does the law protect them? There is no actual marriage involved. Neither the concept stands to neither criminal nor a sin but as a socially unacceptable one. Marriage is a sacred and significant concept in our culture. This is responsible for the procreation of children and strengthening the family line. The children born out of live-in relationships are considered not to be legitimate but yet their rights stand to be protected. The laws have been amended from time to time to lay down the protection of women involved in these kinds of relationships so that they don’t stand exploited from the lying intention of marriage.
Relevant Provisions
Under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the words“in the nature of marriage” have been given legal recognition to protect relations that are beyond the ambit of marriage. This is the first-ever recognition of the non-marital relationships of heterosexual adults. It defines a domestic relationship. It is given as under:-
“Domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”
This has been construed liberally. The provision does not try to point out or encourage relationships outside of marriage but tends to simply protect each quarter of life of women who don’t fall under the category of married women. The need for acknowledgment of these kinds of relationships was necessary. The act was challenged constitutionally in ArunaPramod Shah vs. Union of India[1] on the grounds of discrimination and definition being objectionable. It was argued that a comparison of rights between a woman in a live-in relationship and that of a legally wedded wife cannot be done. This argument stood rejected by the Delhi High court. Why both cases could not be adjudged on similar parameters had no reasonable explanation. They’re always a presumption of marriage if a woman and a man have been staying together for a long period unless something contrary so appears. The requirements therewith are:-
- They should possess a legal age to marry
- Must be otherwise qualified to marry
- Voluntariness to stay together and for a significant period
- Couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses
To be in the nature of marriage, sufficient evidence is required. The right of thousands of women can be sought to be protected through this. We need to understand that the Earth is not specifically protecting the live-in relationship but acknowledging its presence as necessary. Live-in relationships do not involve wedlock but it does involve certain components of it. Certain guidelines are issued by the Supreme Court in this respect. For example, the period should be reasonable has been specifically mentioned in Section 2(f). What constitutes reasonable is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Factors determining the nature of the relationship
- Household sharing under section 2(s) of the said act is given as:-
“Shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”
- The pooling of resources including the financial ones and support from each other.
- Relations that are sexual: having a child together is a strong indicator of marriage. A live-in relationship is also about the emotions that they share and support.
- Socialism and conduct of parties.
The need to protect arises because the dependency of one on another can’t be determined if we don’t understand the nature of the relationship, particularly the responsibilities and the commitments.
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 also lays down certain rules of maintenance under Section 125. Under this, the rights of the wife and a live-in partner are not at par.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, if a cohabitation period of 7 years is observed,marriage is presumed between the two. Children born out of such a relationship should have guaranteed rights of inheritance, succession, etc. (irrespective of religion)
In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2] Hon’ble Supreme Court itself acknowledged that if a law doesn’t seem to be illegal, it does not mean it cannot be immoral.
Conclusion
The present law aims to protect women at every level rather than encouraging such kind of relationships. It also aims to address the exploitation they might suffer in their lives when the relationship is not of wedlock. Live-in relationships are more common outside India. But that doesn’t make it wrong for India. Though it is still a socially unacceptable phenomenon, the change is coming. Yet, it is far away.
The words “in the nature of marriage” are being attempted to be construed broadly to destroy the evils of society. Bigamy is also out of its purview. More than the legal recognition, live-in relationships should be socially accepted so that the concerned people can live their lives with freedom and choose their partner.It cannot be ignored that people today do not want to rush into things. They don’t wish to be involved in the complexities of law once they perform marriage nuptials. But we also have to consider the possibility of misuse of this provision.
We need to have enforced new strategies to implement this concept and counter the existing laws. A separate law addressing live-in relationships should be discussed and enacted. The interpretation of current laws might just be a futile effort.
By-
Vanshika Garg
(Amity Law School, Noida)
[1] Writ Petition(Crl.) 425 of 2008.
[2]Writ Petition (Crl.) 208 of 2004.
Previous post: https://desikanoon.in/can-pm-cares-fund-be-audited/