Live-In Relationships: Legal Recognition and Social Stigma – Judicial precedents and issues under the Domestic Violence Act.

Live-in relationships—once considered a taboo in Indian society—have now entered the legal and judicial discourse with increasing regularity. While the Constitution guarantees personal liberty and the right to life under Article 21, the practical reality is far more complex. At the heart of the matter lies a significant tension: India’s progressive legal recognition of live-in relationships on one hand, and deep-rooted social stigma and moral policing on the other.

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have taken notable steps to uphold the rights of couples who choose to live together without marriage. In the landmark case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the apex court observed that a live-in relationship between consenting adults is not illegal and falls within the scope of the

right to life and liberty. Similarly, in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), the Court strongly protected the right of adult women to choose their partner—even if it meant entering into a live-in relationship—without interference from the state or society.

Judicial clarity, however, does not automatically translate to social acceptance. Couples living together often face ?harassment from neighbors, families, landlords, and even law enforcement. Many FIRs are registered under vague or misused provisions simply because society disapproves of the relationship. The recent spate of "honour killings" and violent community backlash against inter-caste or inter-faith live-in partners is a stark reminder that legal protection alone may not be enough in the face of societal resistance.

What makes the issue more layered is the gendered impact of such relationships. While men may walk away from a live-in arrangement with limited consequences, women are often left vulnerable—legally, socially, and economically. This is where the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) becomes crucial.

Section 2(f) of the Act includes “a relationship in the nature of marriage,” thereby extending protection to women in live-in arrangements who are subjected to abuse. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court outlined key indicators to determine whether a live in relationship qualifies as one "in the nature of marriage." These include the duration of the relationship, shared household, financial arrangements, and societal perception.

However, the law is not without gaps. For instance, there is no clear provision for maintenance, inheritance, or custody rights, unless the relationship satisfies specific legal thresholds. Many women, especially those from marginalised backgrounds, remain unaware of their rights or are unable to assert them in practice.

This disconnect between judicial intent and ground realities raises important policy and legal questions. Should there be a uniform legal framework for regulating live-in relationships? Should India formally recognise civil unions, as done in several Western democracies? Or should the law continue to evolve case by case, leaving the burden of proof and protection entirely on the courts?

What is clear is that the judiciary alone cannot shift societal norms. Legal recognition must go hand in hand with awareness, sensitisation, and reforms in policing and administrative attitudes.. Schools, media, and civil society need to play a role in reshaping outdated perceptions of morality and modern companionship.

Moreover, the privacy and dignity of individuals, especially women, must be fiercely protected—whether in marriage or outside of it. A society that claims to uphold constitutional values cannot criminalise or shame consensual adult choices.

In conclusion, live-in relationships in India today exist in a legal grey zone—legally valid but socially vilified. Courts have shown a commendable willingness to protect such relationships, but the road to full dignity and equality requires more than just case law. It demands a broader cultural and legal shift that respects freedom, ensures protection, and challenges prejudice.

Until then, couples in live-in relationships will continue to walk a tightrope—legally safe, but socially unsafe.