LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP

Athour: Manasi tidke

college name: Sinhgad Law college pune

INTRODUCTION:

Rarely one can see live in relationship in India but it is slowly increasing in the country. Live in relationship is also known as Cohabitation. Cohabitation is an arrangement where to people are not married but live together. They are often involved in romantic or sexually intimate relationship on a long-term or permanent basis.[1]

There is an on going debate for acceptance of live in relationship in India. India is having an rigid social system. In which marriage and family are two basic pillars of Indian society. In Hindus marriage is sacrament. The Rigveda itself speak of the sanctity of the marriage as an institution.

But changes brought in society tries to make changes into existing order of society. Globalization[2] brought many changes in the Indian society. Due to which the new concept is introduced in India which is known as live in relationship. There is difference between purpose of marriage in India and in western countries. In India the marriage has more religious and social purpose. On the other side, in Western countries the purpose of marriage is love making or rather we say living together with companion.

In India as marriage is having more religious importance rather than anything else, the concept of live in relationship which actually stands opposite to it. Due to which live in relationship is facing opposition in Indian society. But with changing generation’s the views regarding religion, customs, traditions are also changing. It is really important to study the views of society regarding this type of relations.

LIVE IN RELATION AND LAWS IN INDIA

There is no specific law related to live in relation in India. There are no laws which helps to lay down the rights and obligations of the parties in live in relationship. Till now there is no legal definition which will help us to define live in relationship. Due to lack of legal provision India does not give any right’s to couple living engaged in live in relationship. Though the Indian judiciary is trying to make clear the concept of live in relationship through different judgement. The Indian Judiciary is trying to make the concept clear of live in relationship with various legislations such as:

THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,2005:

PWDVA Act,2005 was the first act to give recognition to live in relationships by giving certain rights to women who is not legally married, but rather cohabitating with male. Where the women is akin to wife but not equivalent to wife.

Section 2(f) of Domestic Violence Act, 2005

“Domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.[3]

Here the act even thought is not able to provide proper definition of the act but helps the court for interpretation of term in many cases.

Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act, 2005

“Respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.[4]

This section of the act gives the opportunity to the women living in live in relation and fscing domestic violence to file a complaint against a male partner or his relative.

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Section 125 CrPC is order for maintenance of wives, children, old parents which is now been extended to partner in live in relationship as per legal interpretation given by bench of Jaishree Thakur J. which reiterated the holding of the Supreme Court in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141[5]. So in the present case the appallent approached the court for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Thus, the question that arises is whether a man and woman living together for a long time, even without a valid marriage, would raise as in the present case, a presumption of a valid marriage entitling such a woman to maintenance.[6]We believe that in light of the constant change in social attitudes and values, which have been incorporated into the forward-looking Act of 2005, the same needs to be considered with respect to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, a broad interpretation of the same should be taken.[7] So in this case the bench was believing that the interpretation of section 125 CrPC should be broaden. And at last the rights of maintenance was extended to partner in live in relationship along with wives, children and old parents under section 125 CrPC.

JUDICIARY’S APPROACH TO LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP

Aruna Parmod Shah vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 7 April, 2008

In the present case the person was charged with domestic violence against his female live in domestic partner challenged the law use by an unmarried domestic partner. The petitioner admitted that they have performed ring ceremony and not marriage. So they were living together without marriage. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention to the definition of "domestic relationship" contained in Section 2(f) of the Act. He has strenuously objected to the placing of married persons on the same platform as those in a relationship in the nature of marriage. We find no reason why equal treatment should not be accorded to wife as well as woman who has been living with a man as his common-law wife or even as a mistress. Like treatment to both does not, in any manner, derogate from the sanctity of marriage since an assumption can fairly be drawn that a "live-in relationship" is invariably initiated and perpetuated by the male. Once again, we do not rule out the exception but such cases would be rare to find, thus obviating the need of Parliament to provide protection to the male victim. The Court should also not be impervious to social stigma which always sticks to women and not to the men, even though both partake of a relationship which is only in the nature of marriage.[8] The court held that domestic violence with any women let she is in marriage like relationship, or even relationships outside marriage is subjected to the law.

Payal Katra vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan Agra case 2001

In the present case the petitioner was 21 years of age. In this case the Allahabad High court gave the judgement that if men and women major then they can live together with or without getting married. Hon’ble Justice Mr.M.Katju and Hon’ble Justice Mr.R.B.Misra stated that SINCE the petitioner is a major, we direct that she be set at liberty and she can go anywhere and can live with anyone as she desires.[9]

Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors on 17 May, 2010

In the present case the respondent was married to appellant but was engaged in live in relationship with appellant brother. Were as respondent was claming share of property for 2 children’s which were born from live in relationship. Going through every single evidence the court came to the conclusion that the children born from live in relationship are liable for claim only the self acquired property of there parents and not there parental property. The court stated as, “it is evident that in such a fact-situation, a child born of void or voidable marriage is not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral coparcenery property but is entitled only to claim share in self acquired properties, if any.”[10]

Madan Mohan Singh & Ors vs Rajni Kant & Anr on 13 August, 2010

In the present case apex came to conclusion that if the women and men are living in live in relationship for long time then there relationship will be presumed to be marriage. In the case bench stated as, “The live-in- relationship if continued for such a long time, cannot be termed in as "walk in and walk out" relationship and there is a presumption of marriage between them which the appellants failed to rebut.”[11]

S. Khushboo v Kanniammal & Anr (28 April, 2010)

In the present case the apex court depended on the it’s earlier decision in Lata Singh vs. state of Uttar Pradesh in which it was observed that live in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral. The court held that the womens in the live in relationship should provide protection to women’s who are facing in domestic violence in live in relationship.

Palimony is the compensation made by one member of an unmarried couple to the other after separation. The first decision on palimony is the famous decision of California Superior Court in Marvin vs. Marvin (1976) 18 C3d660. This case related to the famous film actor Lee Marvin, with whom a lady Michelle lived for many years without marrying him, and was then deserted by him and she claimed palimony. Subsequently in many decisions of the Courts in USA, the concept of palimony has been considered and developed. The US Supreme Court has not given any decision on whether there is a legal right to palimony, but there are several decisions of the Courts in various States in USA. These Courts in USA have taken divergent views, some granting palimony, some denying it altogether, and some granting it on certain conditions. Hence in USA the law is still in a state of evolution on the right to palimony.[12]

LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP AND INDIAN SOCIETY

Indian society been orthodox society, live in relationship is facing continues opposition from the society. As discussed earlier the two basic pillar of Indian society are family and marriage. And the basic function of marriage in India is raising the family which is known as praja. Having pre-marital sex in India is not accepted and also is not according to the traditions and culture of Indian society. Might be this is the main reason why Indian society is not ready to accept live in relationship as marriage as been accepted. And the most important thing there is no legal definition of live in relationship.

But you will be surprising that, there are some customs present in some part of India which has resemblance with live in relationship. Nata pratha and Maitri karar are the name of customs.

Nata pratha is the custom which is been practiced by tribes in India. And this custom is mainly found in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. The custom allow men and women is allowed to live together and have children. Traditionally it was allowed for only to married or widow people but now-a-days the unmarried people are also getting envolved in this custom.

Maitri Karar is also called as contract marriage. This is mainly found in Gujarat. This custom allows the married man to have relationship with women other than his wife. This customs is mainly used by people to by-pass the Hindu Marriage Act. Which prohibit polygamy or bigamy and enter into unsaid second marriage.

CONCLUSION

Though there are no laws present in India regarding live in relationship, Indian Judiciary is trying it’s best to give the judgement’s in the cases which are coming in front of them with the law’s present such as Domestic violence Act, 2005. As time is passing we are able to see live in relationships are becoming common in metropolitan cities but not has become the order of the day. As people are getting educated people are becoming board minded. Due to which people have started accepting live in relationship on some scale. As we have seen that India itself is having customs such Maitri Karar and Nata Pratha which are allowing couple to live together without marriage. Indians will also accept live in relationship but which might take long time. And off course at last it is the right of person to decide how to live with his/her partner with or without marriage.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation. [2] Means increasing interdependence of world in all aspect such as economic, culture, technology, etc. [3] Section 2(f) of The protection of women from Domestic violence Act, 2005. [4] Section 2(q) of The protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005. [5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949767/ [6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949767/ [7] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949767/ [8] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/511970/ [9] https://www.legitquest.com/case/payal-sharma-v-superintendent-nari-niketan-kalindri-vihar-agra/C661A [10] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1513913/ [11] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/479268/ [12] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1521881/