LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP: EVOLVING LEGALITIES OF FINANCIAL RIGHTS AND RELIEFS

Introduction

The modern and liberal schools of thought regarding institutions of marriage have penetrated the ground level in Indian society. The youth is contemplating and pursuing the concept of Live-in relationships to ensure compatibility before fully embroiling themselves in the holy of marriage. The introduction of this concept may decrease the prospects of divorce in society as supported by the Office For National Statistics(ONS) in their hypothesis that the growth in cohabitation can play a vital role in the decline of the divorce rate, but simultaneously increase the legal complexities involving various areas of regulations. One such area of regulation includes Maintenance and Child Support. The question pertaining to these aspects comes into the forefront when the partners don’t cohabitate with each other or are no longer in a Live-in relationship and financial needs arise for any of the partners or for the child born out of that relationship.

Established Legalities

The question of maintenance and child support in Live-in relationships has been deliberated before the judiciary as currently there are no specific legislations regulating these relationships. Provision of maintenance in a Live-in relationship is a Western concept, termed “palimony.” This concept is still evolving in both the Indian and Western legal systems. As for the Indian scenario, the apex court in the case D.Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal, for the purpose of wider interpretation in maintenance, laid down conditions for “relationship in the nature of marriage” which implicitly also includes live in relationships. The conditions laid down are:

a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

(b) They must be of legal age to marry.

(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

In addition to these conditions the parties must have lived together in a “shared household”. These conditions were outlined because the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides relief to “aggrieved person” which in its definition includes the terms “domestic relationship” and “shared household” and also includes “economic abuse” in what constitutes domestic violence. The abovementioned quoted terms widen the scope for providing relief under the Act as their wider interpretation will lead to the inclusion of cases of Live-in relationships and will consequently help in providing financial aid or assistance to the aggrieved person as in general cases of the act.

Apart from this, The Justice Malimath Committee also approved the amendment of section 125 of CrPC, with the aim to broaden the definition of “wife” in the section to include a woman who changed into living with the person as his spouse for a fairly long tenure, during the subsistence of the primary marriage. These suggestions certainly have the intent of reinforcing the grounds for maintenance in Live-in relationships. However, such definitions become contrary in nature when there are cases where the female partner of the live-in relationship seeks maintenance and is aware of the fact that the male partner is lawfully married to another person. In such cases, the court provides no relief that would be provided to a legally wedded wife or to the person in the live-in relationship.

Along similar lines, the demand for child support in live-in relationships has been supported by the Indian Judiciary through an array of judgments. The abovementioned conditions for “relationship in nature of marriage” are equally essential for claiming child support in the context of a Live-in relationship. The judgment of Uday Gupta vs Aysha And Anr pronounces that children born out of a live-in relationship of couples living together as husband and wife for a long period of time though never married, cannot be considered illegitimate. Section 125 of CrPC also orders for the maintenance of children (subject to certain conditions), so such provisions automatically include child support for children born out of live-in relationships.

Evolving Contentions

Although there has been significant progress in this area of regulation, some developing questions remain to be addressed. The first is equality while demanding maintenance. It is apparently assumed that maintenance will be sought by the female partner only, the social stigma around males does not provide them with enough autonomy to seek so. However there have been rulings granting males maintenance, but only in “Relation of marriage” not in “relationship in nature of marriage.” By creating provisions that will provide maintenance to either of the parties based on their merits irrespective of their gender, the legislature can easily play its part. Still, there is a long way to go for gender equality in this aspect. Another dimension is the amount of maintenance to be provided. In normal cases, there are certain set of conditions and situations, created by judicial rulings, which helps in determining the amount to be paid as maintenance. The similar sets of guidelines are followed in cases of Live-in relationships.

Need for legislative Interference

The abovementioned judgments, rules, and aspects in question are based or derived from Western case laws, proceedings and the ground reality of what the actual scenario is. These constituents combined, form the basis of our legal system but as observed earlier they are still evolving, so it becomes natural for the Legal context to evolve with them. And also the concept of Live-in relationship was introduced much later in the Indian Society when compared to the western society, so Live-in relationship have got its major application in the fast-moving metropolitan cities and not much in Tier 2 and 3 cities. However, the developing stage can be accelerated through Legislative Indulgence.

The usual approach in our legal system for any new concept is first to fill the legislative void by judicial rulings and when the legislation deems itself in the position to draft up a law, they do so. But to accelerate development here, the legislation needs to interfere to craft specified laws for live-in relationships. They should properly address the questions of maintenance, child support, property rights etc.. Certain provisions regarding dispute resolution through arbitration or negotiation should also be considered to alleviate the burden of an already burdened judiciary. Creation of a high level committee or a board which oversees the progress of live in relationship at levels of judiciary, administration and legislation and suggests input about it, would also come in handy. Along with this, it will help in reducing the social stigma that still surrounds the concept of Live-in relationships in a conservative society. Speedy legislative indulgence will curate a constructive road map for different pillars of society (judiciary, administration, general mass) to follow in future.

Conclusion

To conclude, Live-in relationships, under normal circumstances and which do not deprive or affect the rights of other, are supported by the judiciary and are also conferred with rights of maintenance, child support, property rights etc. when sought. However, these rights are subject to guidelines and conditions stipulated by the judicial authorities. Considering that the concept is still pursuant to hesitation in the country, a striking balance between reality and developed concepts can be reached through legislation. A proper balance will be created when all the important constituents of our society are indulged creatively and systematically to foster an environment in which the factors affecting Live-in relationships (from initiation to conclusion) are socially, legally, psychologically and economically facilitated.

References:

1. D.Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal [2011] AIR SC 479.
2. Uday Gupta v Aysha and Anr [2014] AIR Online SC 271.
3. Indra Sarma v V.K.V. Sarma [2013] AIR SCW 6783.
4. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
5. Choudhary Laxmi Narayan, Mridula Narayan, Mridul Deepanshu, 'Live-In Relationships in India—Legal and Psychological Implications'(Research Gate, March 2021).

Disclaimer:

The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. All views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any affiliated organizations. This blog may contain links to external websites, which are provided for convenience. We do not endorse or assume any responsibility for the content, accuracy, or reliability of these external sites.