A Husband Can’t Be Exempted From His Duty To Maintain His Wife Just Because He Lost His Job: High Court Of Karnataka

Citation: WP No. 20801 Of 2022

Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice M.Nagaprasanna

Decided On: 25th Day Of October, 2023


This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the PRL. Judge, family court at Mysuru in m.c.145/2022 dated 03.09.2022 on I.A.II vide annexure-e. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 03.09.2022 passed in M.C.No.145/2022 on an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act for short) seeking interim maintenance from the hands of the husband.


The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is wife. The two get married on 02.03.2020. It transpires that the relationship between the husband and the wife flounders and on floundering of such relationship, the parties were before the Family Court in M.C.No.145/2022. The issue in the lis does not concern the proceedings before the concerned Court. The wife files an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance at the hands of the husband and also files an affidavit of assets and liabilities, as is required in law. The concerned Court grants an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioner before this Court.

petitioner contends that the husband has lost his job and the Court comes to conclude that an amount of Rs.50,000/- is earned by the husband erroneously and therefore, in the light of him not having a job as on date cannot be directed to be paid a maintenance of sum of Rs.10,000/-, which has become difficult for him to even consider such payment.

Court’s Judgement and Analysis:

The submission of the learned counsel that the husband has lost his job and cannot be directed to pay maintenance is noted only to be rejected, as the husband being an able bodied man is expected to work and take care of the wife. Any interference of the order that is impugned would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG. Considering that the petition of the husband was dismissed.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement


Right of a Child of an Invalid Marriage in Hindu Joint Family Property: A Glimpse into the Recent Supreme Court Judgment   


In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Revanasiddappa and Anr v. Mallikarjun and Ors [1], delivered a significant ruling concerning the rights of children born out of void or voidable marriages in Hindu joint family property under the Mitakshara system of law. The three-judge bench, led by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, ruled that children born from such marriages are entitled to a share in the property of their deceased parents.  

This judgment marks a significant departure from previous interpretations of the Hindu Marriage Act [2] and the Hindu Succession Act [3] and has profound implications for the legal rights of such children. In this article, we will explore the implications of this judgment, the legal context surrounding it, and its impact on the Hindu joint family property system. 



The genesis of this legal conundrum lies in the conflict of interpretations surrounding Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which deals with the legitimacy of children born from void or voidable marriages. Section 16(1) and Section 16(2) of the HMA bestow legitimacy upon children born from void and voidable marriages, respectively. However, Section 16(3) of the same Act creates an exception, stating that such children shall not have rights in the property of any person other than their parents. 


The controversy surrounding this issue gained prominence due to differing opinions rendered by coordinate benches of the Supreme Court. The 2010 decision in Bharatha Matha and anr v. R Vijaya Renganathan & Ors [4] held that children born from void or voidable marriages were entitled to inherit only their father’s self-acquired property, excluding ancestral coparcenary property. However, in 2011, the Supreme Court, in an earlier round of the present appeal in Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun [5], deviated from this precedent and asserted that such children have a claim to both self-acquired and ancestral property. This disagreement led to the matter being referred to a larger bench. 




Before delving into the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment, it is crucial to comprehend the concept of invalid marriages in Hindu law. In Hindu law, marriage is considered a sacred union, and its validity is a crucial factor in determining the legal rights and status of the parties involved. Hindu marriages can be broadly classified into two categories: valid and invalid. 


Valid marriages conform to the essential conditions prescribed under Section 5 of the HMA, and other relevant legal provisions, including the consent of both parties, the absence of prohibited relationships, and compliance with necessary rituals and ceremonies. In such marriages, the offspring are generally entitled to inherit ancestral property. 


Invalid i.e., void or voidable marriages, under Section 11 and Section 12 of the HMA respectively, are those unions that do not meet the essential legal conditions for a valid Hindu marriage. Void marriages can occur due to various reasons, including bigamy, child marriage, prohibited degrees of relationship, marriages in violation of the sapinda relationship, non-compliance with essential rituals, or other violations of the Hindu Marriage Act. Voidable marriages, on the other hand, are marriages that can be annulled at the request of one of the parties involved due to certain legal defects or fraud. 


Historically, children born out of void or voidable marriages were considered illegitimate and were often denied any claim to the ancestral property of their parents’ joint Hindu family. This discriminatory practice has long been a contentious issue, prompting the Supreme Court to reevaluate the legal rights of such children. 




The case of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun [6] revolves around the rights of a child born out of an invalid marriage within a Hindu joint family setup. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether such a child can claim a share in the ancestral property of the Hindu joint family, even if the marriage of their parents is deemed invalid. 


The court recognized that the child should not be made to suffer due to the invalidity of their parents’ marriage. Denying them a share in the ancestral property would be detrimental to their welfare. The Supreme Court emphasized the legitimacy conferred upon children of void or invalid marriages by statutory provisions. The court cited Section 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which states that in the case of a voidable marriage that is subsequently annulled, a child begotten before the annulment is deemed to be legitimate. This provision extends the same rights and legitimacy under Section 16(1) to children born from marriages declared void as if they were born from valid marriages. 

However, it is essential to note that the Supreme Court clarified that these rights are limited to the properties of the child’s parents. In cases of invalid marriages, the man and woman do not have the status of husband and wife under Hindu law. Consequently, the child’s rights are restricted to the inheritance of their parents’ property, and they do not possess the right to claim other coparcenary shares. 




The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, took a progressive stance and provided much-needed clarity on this contentious issue. The ruling underscores the principle that every child, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, has an inherent right to their parental property within the framework of Hindu law. The judgment has far-reaching implications and reflects a departure from the traditional interpretation of Hindu law. This decision emphasizes the principle of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Indian Constitution.  


The landmark judgment promotes social justice and seeks to rectify historical injustices that may have been perpetuated by traditional interpretations of Hindu law. It ensures that children born in complex family situations are not disadvantaged. It underscores the importance of protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals, particularly children, and ensuring their access to ancestral property. The Supreme Court judgment of 2023 is a step in the right direction, heralding a more inclusive and equitable interpretation of Hindu law in contemporary India. It underscores the principle that law cannot remain static and must adapt to contemporary understandings of family and kinship. While it brings much-needed clarity to the legal landscape, it also raises the need for continued legal education and awareness to ensure that these rights are effectively asserted and protected in practice. 


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 


Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 


[1] 2023INSC783

[2] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

[3] Hindu Succession Act, 1956

[4] (2010) 11 SCC 483

[5] (2011) 11 SCC 1

[6] 2023INSC783


Can’t Say Physical Relationship Was Without Consent If Married Woman Having Experience in Sex Doesn’t Offer Resistance: Allahabad HC

CASE TITLE: Rakesh Yadav and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another

DECIDED ON: 04.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.


The Allahabad High Court made a noteworthy observation that when a married woman with prior sexual experience doesn’t oppose a physical relationship, it cannot be concluded that her involvement with a man was non-consensual. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh’s bench stated this while halting legal actions against an individual who was accused of raping a 40-year-old married woman. The Court pointed out that the purported victim, while still married and with two children, chose to enter a live-in arrangement with the first party involved (Rakesh Yadav) to pursue her goal of marrying him, without obtaining a divorce from her husband.


In essence, the Court was addressing the request presented by three accused individuals aiming to dismiss the official accusation documented against them. Subsequently, charges were acknowledged against applicant no.1 under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, and against applicant nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), New Court No.III/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.

As per the version provided by the alleged victim, she entered into matrimony in 2001 with her spouse, resulting in the birth of two children from their union. Due to a strained relationship with her husband, Applicant No. 1, Rakesh Yadav, purportedly took advantage of the situation and lured her by promising to marry her. Consequently, she resided with him for a period of five months, during which he engaged in a physical relationship with her under the guise of marriage.

Furthermore, the accuser asserted that a co-accused, Rajesh Yadav (applicant no. 2), and Lal Bahadur (applicant no. 3), applicant no.1’s brother and father respectively, also assured her of her impending marriage to Rakesh Yadav. Upon her insistence, they obtained her signature on a plain stamp paper and falsely claimed that they had executed a notarized marriage, even though no such marriage had taken place.

Contrarily, the counsel representing the applicants contended that the alleged victim, a 40-year-old married woman and a mother of two children, possessed the maturity to comprehend the implications and ethical aspects of the actions for which she gave consent. Therefore, it was argued that this case did not involve rape but rather a consensual relationship between applicant no.1 and the complainant.


Noting the need for thorough examination, the Court suspended any additional progress in the criminal case involving the applicants. Moreover, the Court provided the opposing parties with the freedom to submit a counter affidavit within a span of six weeks. The case has been scheduled for a hearing in approximately nine weeks’ time.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani


Does a False pretext of marriage amount to rape -?


The present research indicates, a question frequently arised in court as to whether sexual intercourse with women constitutes rape if consent was obtained through a false promise of marriage under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rape was considered a crime in India, and offenders were punished. Because there is a sense of juvenile freedom in certain parts of the world, the word Marriage may have acquired a very negative aura around it. Marriage is viewed as a holy bond between two people that transcends all physical, emotional, and spiritual barriers. But at the same time on a different note, it is viewed negatively by young people in some societies. You are against it when you are young because your physical body is in a certain mode. Marriage appears to be a bond and a chain. Different religions and cultures treat marriage in a way their holy book prescribes it.  Although the determining factor varies from case to case, the Indian Judiciary has recognized marriage through deception as a crime of rape.


The main difference is consensual sex and non -consensual sex. The broadness of consensual sex has to determined on one of many grounds, whether it falls within the ambit or not. i.e. false promise to matrimony. Consensual sex is defined as sexual activity between the parties that is permitted by both of them. When a man engages in sexual activity with a woman against her will and without her consent, it is called rape.

In the modern world, where couples and cohabitation are common, particularly in urban areas, and are also tolerated by society, also when the mind of the adult is twice grown as the age at present can be said sex is no longer seen as taboo. Consensual sexual liaisons between two men and women are now perceived as a liberating act rather than a sin in today’s evolving environment. As a result, a distinction between consenting sexual activity and rape has been made in some instances, especially where there is a high risk of abuse.

[1]In one instance (Saleha Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1988), the prosecution procured consent for sexual activity in return for a fictitious promise of marriage. Following the filing of a complaint, a police investigation was conducted, and the police report, which was submitted in accordance with Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, established a case of violation under Section 376 of the IPC.

However, the judge tried the defendant under Section 498 for detaining a married woman rather than Section 376 for rape, most likely because the prosecutor was already married

Obtaining consent through deception, deception, or unsuitable persuasion is another method of Rape. Consent is crucial when committing rape. Depending on whether or not consent has been given, sexual activity is either legal or illegal.

Consent may be given voluntarily or fraudulently, compelled or uninformed, implicit or explicit, informed or uninformed. A violation of Indian law is having a sexual relationship while being falsely promised marriage. Soliciting sexual consent under the guise of marriage does not exonerate a person from rape accusations. If a man makes a woman a false promise that he will marry her so they can have a sexual relationship even though he has no intention of doing so, and she accepts the promise, then the consent was obtained fraudulently.\


  1. Rape.—A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following de­scriptions:—

(First) — Against her will.

(Secondly) —Without her consent.

(Thirdly) — With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

(Fourthly) —With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be law­fully married.

(Fifthly) — With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupe­fying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

(Sixthly) — With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offense of rape.

(Exception) —Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.] STATE AMENDMENT

(Manipur) —(a) in clause sixthly, for the word “sixteen” substitute the word “fourteen”; and[2]

Section 90 defines the situations in which the consent apparently to be given by a person is not sufficient for purposes of the Code. It was suggested that consent obtained from a person by putting him under hypnotic or other occult influence should be specifically mentioned in the section. [3]


In numerous cases, the Supreme Court of India has explained the distinction between a promise and a false promise and breaking it.

In the case of Naushad (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naushad, 2013), the defendant had been seeing the prosecutor for the previous two years and had thought that he would marry her. On the basis of this assurance, the defendant Naushad vowed to wed the victim and frequently engaged in physical contact with her.She was raped, and as a result, she got pregnant.

The defendant was found guilty of betraying her trust by refusing to wed her and given a life sentence for raping her while pretending to be engaged in a fake marriage The defendant also allegedly obtained her consent in accordance with Section 90 of the IPC in the mistaken belief that he could wed her.

In the Sachin case (Sachin @ Devendra Gajanand Sangray v. State of Gujarat, 2015), the accused and the victim had been in a live-in relationship and cohabiting in Surat, Gujarat for a year. They were also coworkers. Due to a personal feud that started between them on March 1, 2012, they broke up after a year. On March 10, 2012, he visited the girl’s home to extend an invitation to his wedding on March 12, 2012. The girl’s complaint claims that the defendant  raped her after pretending to want to marry her.[4]

As stated earlier it depends from case to case in a recent judgement, Orissa high court has declared the SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ON THE FALSE PRETEXT OF MARRIAGE does not amount to rape

The court made the observations last month while granting bail to a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage.

“A consensual relationship without even any assurance, obviously will not attract the offence under section 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code. The law holding that false promise to marriage amounts to rape appears to be erroneous,”

[5]“It is an undeniable fact that our society is still largely conservative when it comes to matters of sex and sexuality. Virginity is a prized element. The victim being a major girl with a sound mind, there seems to be no question of anyone being in a position to induce her into a physical relationship under the assurance of marriage. There could be a possibility of experimentation with erotic asphyxiation which is very much part of their sexual autonomy,” the judge said.[6]


“While a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degrades and de les the soul of a helpless female.”(Tulsidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa, 2003)

Perhaps most significantly under Indian law, ending a marriage engagement after having sex does not automatically constitute rape. Due to the absence of probate legislation, rape by false promise of marriage cases are decided at the court’s discretion after taking all relevant factors into account.

There must be some use of force and a complete lack of consent in order to prove the first aspect of rape. First-degree rape is defined as coerced sexual contact with the victim’s consent. Furthermore, rape in the second degree, which carries a less severe punishment than rape in the first, may be defined as consent obtained through a mistake of fact, misrepresentation, or deception.

The best form to come to a decision in this area of cases is to follow the Latin maxim which is the very basis of law Audi alteram partem listen to the other side”, or “let the other side be heard as well[7]

Written by – Steffi Desousa

[1] file:///C:/Users/Steffi%20Desousa/Downloads/JPSP+-+2022+-+7.pdf

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/623254/


[4] [4] file:///C:/Users/Steffi%20Desousa/Downloads/JPSP+-+2022+-+7.pdf

[5] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/consensual-sex-on-pretext-of-marriage-not-rape-orissa-hc-101673290400807.html

[6] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/consensual-sex-on-pretext-of-marriage-not-rape-orissa-hc-101673290400807.html


[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_alteram_partem


Marriage and Live-In Relationship in India: A Socio-Legal study


“Living with the partner has no defined meaning or scope. The phrase “live-in relationship” refers to a living situation in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that mimics marriage. To the outside world, a pair portrays themselves as a couple. ‘Live in a relationship’ refers to a relationship in which the parties are not married in the sense of a legal marriage solemnization. Nonetheless, the parties live as a couple, demonstrating to the rest of the world that their relationship is stable and consistent.

 A ‘common law marriage’ is a term used to describe such a partnership. Marriage is a wonderful feeling that can unite people of every skin tone, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. Yet, having more time altogether, and perhaps even moving in together, can help couples strengthen and discover their love for one another. The terms “marriage” and “live-in relation” become relevant in this context.

It is generally believed by society and the law that married spouses should live together. Social acceptance has its own allure and gratification. Young folks nowadays can stay with their spouses even without the constraints of arranged weddings because of the rise of live-in relationships. There are benefits and drawbacks to all these societally created ways of expressing and experiencing love and romance.

 Live-in Relationships and the Law

“There is no explicit legislation in India that addresses live-in partnerships. The Hindu 

Marriage Act of 1955 provides legitimacy, succession, and property rights to children born in ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ marriages. The 2005 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act also provides some protection to the wounded parties from any sort of atrocity performed against females in “relationships like marriage”. 

“A woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to the same legal rights as a wife if she has been in such a relationship for a reasonable period. This does not make an invalid marriage valid or provide legal recognition to bigamous marriages. While giving support to the woman with whom he is in a bigamous/adulterous relationship, a man may face allegations of adultery and bigamy.”  

The Treatment of Live-in Relationships by Indian Judges

“The Indian judiciary does not explicitly promote or condemn such live-in relationships. In each case, the judiciary simply dispenses justice by the law. The primary goal of the judiciary is to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The judiciary analyses cultural norms and constitutional principles while deciding cases. The meaning of the term “like marriage” is not immediately clear, and the PWEDVA is already arguing about it.”  

“The petitioner in Aruna Parmod Shah Vs UOI[1] challenged the Act’s validity, claiming that it discriminates against men and that Section 2(f) of the Act’s definition of “domestic relationship” is unconstitutional. In the second instance, the petitioner argued that equating “marriage-like relationships” with “married” status deprives the lawfully married wife of her rights. The Delhi High Court dismissed both challenges to the Act’s constitutionality. In answer to the second charge, the court ruled that a wife, as well as a woman living with a man as his “common law” wife or even a mistress, should be regarded similarly. In this decision, the judges defined “a connection resembling marriage” to encompass both a “common law marriage” and a relationship with a “mistress,” without going into detail about the legal and social consequences of these terms.”  

The Allahabad High Court held in Payal Katara Vs Superintendent Nari and Others[2] that anybody above the age of 21 has the right to travel and that anyone, man, or woman, can live together if they like. In the case of Patel and others, the Supreme Court declared that a live-in relationship between two adults who are not married is not illegal. The Supreme Court ruled in Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. & Anr[3] that live-in relationships are only permitted between married important individuals of different genders.”  

“The Apex Court ruled in the Radhika Vs State of M.P.[4] that if a man and woman have been living together for a long time, they would be regarded married and their child will be declared genuine. In Abhijit Bhikaseth Auto Vs State of Maharashtra and Others[5], the Supreme Court of India declared on September 16, 2009, that a woman does not have to establish her marriage to be entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a woman in a live-in relationship may be entitled to assistance.”  

“The Supreme Court awarded the live-in partner the status of the wife in Chellamma Vs Tillamma7. Katju J. and Mishra J. both stated that a man and a woman can live together even if they are not married in their opinion. Although society considers this immoral, it is not illegal. It is important to distinguish between law and morality.

The court went even further, declaring that children born to such a parent are legitimate and valid. The heirs of such a person can only inherit the property of his or her parents. This is because such offspring are not granted coparcenary rights to their parents’ inherited Hindu undivided family property.

During S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, the Supreme Court ruled that children born to unmarried parents in a common-law relationship are entitled to legal protection (1993). The Supreme Court has ruled that under Article 14 of both the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, a probability of marriage exists when a man and a woman share a home and live together for a prolonged period. This means their offspring can officially be a part of the family tree and perhaps get an inheritance. 

The Apex Court ruled in Bharatha Matha v. Vijaya Renganathan (2010) that babies living with cohabiting couples are entitled to a share of their parent’s assets. The Apex Court determined that, if the connection lasts long enough, a kid born in such a situation may not be regarded as an illegitimate immigrant. 

They are the legal proprietors of their parents’ possessions. One benefit of the ruling is that it will not only deter couples from hastily divorcing, but it will also encourage couples to have children, who were previously anxious about their children’s future if they divorced. In Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs Rajni Kant & Anr[6], the court held that a long-term live-in relationship cannot be deemed a “walk in and walk out” relationship and that the parties are presumed to be married.”  

India’s highest court has ruled that a live-in relationship is not a crime in the case of D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal[7]. The petition alleges that the appellant moved out of the respondent’s father’s house after two or three years and began living in his own country, but that he continued to visit the respondent regularly. According to the lower Family Court, the appellant was married to the respondent, not Lakshmi. The High Court and the Family Court Judge in Coimbatore’s rulings were overruled, and the matter was remanded to be considered again by the law.”  

“According to the judges in the case, the word marriage is not specifically defined in the PWDVA, 2005. The judges decided that a relationship like marriage is equal to common- law marriage, tying it to the prevalent “live-in” partnerships in the west. If a man had a ‘keep,’ whom he financially supports and hires solely for sexual purposes and/or as a servant, it would not be a marriage-like arrangement, the judges said. A ‘domestic relationship’ is more than merely hanging around on weekends or having a one-night stand. The Supreme Court’s ruling would exclude many ladies who have had a live-in relationship from benefiting from the 2005 Act.”  

By stating this, the judges appear to be implying that the term “live in relationship” has a far broader scope than “relationship like marriage”. In 2010, the New Jersey State Assembly passed a law requiring the parties to have a formal agreement before asserting palimony. Palimony is a phrase used in the United States to denote the provision of maintenance to a woman who has lived with a man for a long time without marrying him and then been abandoned by him. In Alok Kumar Vs State & Anr[8], the complainant sought to have his First Information Report (FIR) dismissed.”  


  • “Legal system does not want to recognize all live-in partnerships as marriages. Only solid and sufficiently long-term relationships between the parties qualify for protection under the 2005 Act. “
  • “Simultaneously, it is not hostile to new emerging partnerships such as live-in couples, which are particularly common in cities. The judge should be pragmatic rather than dogmatic when dealing with such issues. “
  • “In the absence of unambiguous social and legal categorization of non-marital relationships, the field has been left wide open.”
  • “Even the highest court authorities preach on the need to separate a “relation like marriage” from a “servant” or a “keep” and a “one night stand”. It should also be noted that none of these legislative measures are intended to encompass the entire spectrum of live-in partnerships.”


“It is encouraging for the country that, rather than ignoring the problem, it has opted to take steps to safeguard women living in shared households, even if they are not married. Given India’s social and cultural context, enacting legislation to govern live-in relationships would be unwise. Most individuals choose this option to escape the burden and commitments that come with a long-term commitment.

 In the event of a dispute on whether to continue the partnership, a partner is free to come and go as he pleases without the tedium and complication of divorce processes. That is how some people prefer it. It is not the job of the government to regulate and monitor human lives and decisions on such a minute scale. “  

“It is a person’s choice whether to marry or get into a live-in relationship. I believe that the existing system in the United Kingdom and other nations should be studied. Couples should be able to sign cohabitation contracts outlining their rights and responsibilities if they so want.”  

“Even then, the rights and responsibilities will be limited in comparison to those granted in marriage. Another important aspect to consider is that, even under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the man in a live-in relationship has no legal rights. This part of Indian legislation must also be investigated.”  

“In India’s current marriage laws, common-law marriages, or partnerships in the form of marriage must be recognized and provided for. Wherever there is a need to change the legislation to give rights and responsibilities for such a partnership, it should be done. There is a need to restructure the legal system to meet societal changes, but there is no need to establish new and distinct legislation to do so.”  


  • Landmark Judgments- Live-In Relationship: SC’s Judgments Concerning the Legal

Standing   Of                Live-In      Relationships      lawyersclubindia,






“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Anushka Satwani

[1] Aruna Parmod Shah Vs UOI 2008(102) DRJ543. 

[2] Payal Katara Vs Superintendent Nari and Others AIR 2001 All 254. 

[3] Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. & Anr AIR 2006 SC 2522. 

[4] Radhika Vs State of M.P. AIR 1966 MP 134, (1969) ILLJ 623 MP. 

[5] Abhijit Bhikaseth Auto Vs State Of Maharashtra and Others AIR 2009 (NOC) 808 (Bom.).  7 Chellamma Vs Tillamma AIR 2009 SC 112. 

[6] Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs Rajni Kant & Anr AIR 1992 SC 756 

[7] D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal 2010 10 SCC 469 

[8] Alok Kumar Vs State & Anr 1968 AIR 453, 1968 SCR (1) 813  

1 2