Live-in relationships have once again found themselves at the centre of legal and moral debate in India, this time triggered by two conflicting rulings from the Allahabad High Court within days of each other.
In one case, a single judge refused to grant protection to a couple where one partner was still legally married, effectively denying legitimacy to such an arrangement. Shortly thereafter, a division bench of the same court took a completely different stance, holding that the law cannot be governed by moral considerations alone and granting protection to another such couple.
The contradiction is not merely judicial; it reflects a deeper discomfort within India’s legal system when it comes to relationships that exist outside the traditional framework of marriage.
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: Is the law meant to preserve the sanctity of marriage at all costs, or to protect women from harm, regardless of the nature of their relationships?
The recognition of live-in relationships in India emerged as a legal necessity. In Indra Sarma v V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court acknowledged such relationships primarily to extend protection to women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The law introduced the category of a “relationship in the nature of marriage,” allowing women outside formal wedlock to seek remedies against abuse.
This was never intended to equate live-in relationships with marriage, nor to weaken the institution itself. Instead, it was a response to a social reality that relationships exist beyond legal marriage, and the absence of legal recognition often leaves women vulnerable to exploitation, abandonment, and violence.
The legal landscape shifted significantly in 2018 when the Supreme Court, in Joseph Shine v Union of India, decriminalised adultery. By striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, the court reframed adultery as a civil issue rather than a criminal offence.
One of the consequences of this ruling is that live-in relationships are no longer confined to unmarried individuals. They may now involve partners where one or both are already married. While such relationships may still carry social stigma and become grounds for divorce, they are no longer criminal.
This has placed courts in a difficult position. When couples in such relationships seek protection, the judiciary must decide whether to prioritise the legal rights of a spouse or the fundamental rights of individuals choosing to cohabit.
Not all live-in relationships qualify for legal protection. Courts have repeatedly held that only those resembling a stable, long-term partnership, akin to marriage, fall within the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act.
This creates a grey area. What constitutes a relationship “in the nature of marriage” is unclear. Duration, shared household, financial arrangements, and social recognition are all considered, but there is no rigid formula, say experts.
As a result, judicial interpretation often varies, influenced as much by individual perspectives as by legal principles. The recent Allahabad High Court rulings illustrate this.
The single-judge bench, in denying protection, leaned heavily on the need to preserve the sanctity of marriage. It reasoned that allowing a married person to enter into a live-in relationship without first dissolving the existing marriage would undermine the legal rights of the spouse, including the right to consortium under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The judgment went a step further by drawing parallels with bigamy, invoking penal provisions that criminalise a second marriage while the first is already active.
In contrast, in the second case, the division bench adopted a more rights-based approach. It emphasised that the role of the court is not to enforce societal morality but to uphold the law and protect individual liberty. Two consenting adults, said the court, are entitled to live together, even if their relationship may not conform to conventional norms.
The tension between these two approaches underscores a broader dilemma, that of the protection of the institution of marriage, a social framework that carries legal and economic implications.
However, at the same time, the law cannot deny protection to individuals in live-in relationships.
Experts explain that for many couples, especially women, seeking legal protection is about ensuring safety. In a country where honour-based violence remains a reality, the refusal to grant protection can have life-threatening consequences.
"Insisting that a married individual must first obtain a divorce before entering into a live-in relationship may appear legally sound, but it does not always align with lived realities. Divorce proceedings in India can be prolonged, contested, and emotionally draining. During this period, individuals may already be in new relationships, often facing hostility from families and communities. Denying them protection in such circumstances risks pushing them into greater vulnerability," says advocate Satyanarayanan, practising in the Bombay High Court.
As live-in relationships become more visible, courts will continue to grapple with the challenge of balancing marital rights on one hand, and individual autonomy on the other.
What remains clear, however, is that the legal recognition of live-in relationships was never about endorsing a moral choice. It was about addressing a gap in protection, say activists.
In navigating this complex terrain, the judiciary may need to draw a sharper distinction between disapproval and denial of rights.
Because, ultimately, the question is not whether live-in relationships are morally acceptable. It is whether those who choose them deserve to be safe.
