Live-in-Relationships: The Indian Perspective

When we apply living relationships to an average class of people, we find it less prevalent as this class is scrutinised more in the society. On the contrary both the high income group and the lower income group are in a position to readily accept newer kinds of relationships. A girl from a poor family that is in need of shelter without much hesitation can consider no harm in living with a man of a slightly higher financial status without marrying him. Now-a-days even parents have slowly started giving sanctions to living arrangements for the sake of happiness of their children. The busy lives do not permit us to look into background of couple if they decide to live in a new place or city. The cities in India are examples of continuance of faith in marriages on one hand and attraction towards living arrangements on the other.

In most of the cases, people agree to live together so that at a later stage it may take shape of marital relationship. Still inspite of bonafide intentions of the couples taking “out way decision”, most of living arrangements do not take the shape of eternal bonding.

Live-in-relations equal to right relationships or not?

Someone has rightly opined that the world as God created was a kingdom of right relationships. There was right relationship between God and people. There was right relationship between people. There was right relationship between people and the rest of creation. Now relationships that lack any sanctity are even being termed as right by the policy makers, what more we can expect in God’s beautiful and pure kingdom. No relationship can ever be equated with a relationship as eternal as marriage. Hence the option of live-in-relationships may seem attractive but the real side may not be that fancy. They may be practically possible but their success in life which some day requires a life-long companion is definitely dull.

Provisions with regard to live-in-relationships

Outside India

The law introduced in 1999 in France makes provisions for “civil solidarity pacts” allowing  couples (even of same sex) to enter into a union and be entitled to the same rights as married couples in such areas as income tax, inheritance, housing and social welfare. Couples, who want to enter into such a relationship may sign up before a court clerk and can revoke the contract unilaterally or by bilaterally with a simple declaration, made in writing, which gives the partner three months’ notice.

Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In India

No law at present deal with the concept of live-in-relationships and their legality. Still even in the absence of a specific legislation on the subject, it is praise-worthy that under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, all benefits are bestowed on woman living in such kind of arrangement by reason of being covered within the term “domestic relationship”  under Section 2(f). If we propose to enact a law to regulate live-in-relationships, though it would grant rights to parties to it but at the same time it would also impose obligations on them.

Couples prefer to choose it only to have no responsibility of any sort, but if it is guided by some law, then it would not be so readily preferred. To consider of enacting a law on the lines of provisions in other countries may not be successful as their relationships are granted sanction mainly to legalize gay relationship. In India, since it would not be socially permissible to have relationship between persons of same sex, the law enacted for them by the countries cannot act as guiding force.

Rights of a child born out of a live-in-relationship

Need for a legal provision is felt to secure the future of a child born from a relationship which has not taken the shape of marriage.  The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives the status of a legitimate child to every child whether result of void, voidable or valid marriage. So, we don’t require a legal provision to grant legitimacy to the child, but to grant property and maintenance rights.

In case the parties to live-in-relationship decide to move out of it, to secure rights of child whom none of the parents want to keep, there must be a provision that any of them would be responsible to look after the child. To ensure that his rights are actually given, Court may appoint a guardian. The child is entitled to get a share in the property of both the father as well as the mother.

Evaluation of the decision of the Maharashtra government

Justice Malimath Committee as well as the Law Commission of India states that if a woman has been in a ‘live in’ relationship for a reasonable period, she should enjoy the legal rights of the wife. On 8th October, this recommendation was accepted by the Maharashtra government.

  

Though the government accepted recommendations of Malimath Committee, but have we thought that the same government some time ago prohibited bar dancers. It looks that government has adopted double standards and taken contradictory stands on women’s rights. According to few though live-in relationships are expressions of love but they also deserve legal protection.

Any decision to bring change in Section 125, CrPC with regard to live - in - relationship invites amendments in other laws as well including law of evidence, succession, adoption, bigamy, marriage etc. We must not forget that one enters into living arrangements to effectively deal with a career without any sort of personal obligations of family.

Therefore, if even inspite of no relationship in the eyes of law (marriage), one has to be made liable to pay maintenance after a reasonable time period, aren’t we disturbing the concept of virtual arrangements (existing without tension about other)? It may appear that the decision of Maharashtra Government favours women’s rights, but the consequences may be harsh. We may find a decline in marriages as both would require monetary responsibility, so why not prefer live in relationships. An increase in child abandonment is a possibility when both parents deny any responsibility. With the weakening of marriage as an institution, there are possibilities that not only would social offences increase but also independence of people would get manifested by indulging in live-in-relationships.

Courts and grant of validity to the live-in-relationships

In a petition between Payal Katara and Superintendent of Nari Niketan, Agra, the Allahabad High Court on 4th March 2002 came up with a bold judgment by stating that anyone, man or woman, could live together even without getting married if they wished. A similar step was taken by the Apex Court on 15th January, 2008 when a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P.Sathasivam leaned in favour of legitimizing a live-in couple as they had lived together for 30 years.

Conclusion

 It should not be denied that our culture does need a legislature to regulate relationships which are likely to grow in number with changes in the ideology of people. The right time has come that efforts should be made to enact a law having clear provisions with regard to the time span required to give status to the relationship, registration and rights of parties and children born out of it.