Recently in the case of Rupakshi D/O Vikash v/s State of Rajasthan and Others, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the live in relationship must be registered with the government authority until the law is formed to govern them.
As India is evolving, the new generation has started to welcome western ideas like that of live in relationship. Living relationship can be simply defined as couples living together without tying the knot. It can be also defined as unmarried couples committed towards each other but not yet married. This has recently gained significance as an issue regarding the implications raised by this relationship. As currently there are no laws or provisions to govern live in relationship.
This relation may seem to be very adorable or unique but on the other hand it has a lot many drawbacks. Talking about the existing Hindu marriage law, 1955, there is no recognition of live in relationships. In Muslim law this type of relations is seen as one outside the scope of marriage and is observed to be ‘zina’ and ‘haram’. The situation of woman in this type of relation is very subjective and lacks social validity.
Legal status of live in relationship
It is very well known that as per the Article 21 of The Indian constitution it is the individual’s choice to choose his life partner to live with and similarly Article 19 gives every individual right to settle or reside anywhere within the territory of India. This forms the very basic part of life and right to life gives the individual liberty to choose his partner. In various cases decided by the apex court it has been acknowledge that live in relationship is not per se illegal or immoral. In the case of S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and Anr. of (2010) it was observed that living together is a sign of person’s right to life and defines what his liberty is. Further in case of Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the court said that live in relationship is neither a crime nor a sin but this is currently socially unacceptable. Similarly, in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of UP and Anr. (2006) the court said that a live in relationship between two consenting heterosexual individuals is not an offense but is seen as an act of immorality.
In the case of D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal filed in 2010 this relationship was recognized. Later on, the distinction between legal marriages and live in relationship was done by the Apex Court in the case of Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) where in, it was noted that marriage continues even after difference in opinions, non-sharing of household etc. Whereas when we see live in relationship there the relation ends as soon, they decide to do so or when they don’t wish to live together. In case of marriage the party asserting the existence has to prove it because of the legislation which goes by “in the nature of”.
Therefore, it can be seen from the series of cases that the apex court recognized live-in relationship in various cases as the meaning and scope of the relation expanded. It is just the fact that there is no delegated law or provision to govern this type of relationship which in essence is the root to many of the implications raised. The society also sees this as sin and does is not widely accepted. Though it is considered as an act of immorality but the law doesn’t consider it as illegal.
Challenges and legal gaps
The children taking birth from this type of relation can be the victims of societal stigma. So their well- being is not catered to. The life of the minor taking birth should be taken care by the parents. To be specific the major responsibility is of the father because woman in these relations are found to be sufferers. The legal obligation of the male should be seen as a moral duty to take care of the child.
Majority of couples have to face humility and threat from their family members. After getting tired of this humiliation, they approach the court filing writ petition in the courts asking for the protection of their fundamental right to life under article 21. Regarding this plethora of cases are filed daily in different courts. The solution came in the case of Suman Meena and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan the court ordered the state to appoint a “nodal office” who would solve the grievance raised that too within a fixed time limit. But the grievances raised were not being able to addressed even after the stipulated time. Again, even after the addressal of the issue many petitions were filed to seek protection. Currently there is no legislation that governs live in relationship or which talks about legality of the child born and protection of the female partner.
Recently, the state government implemented Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Uttarakhand. The code has certain provisions from Clause 378 to 388 and part III which deals with the procedure and legality of live in relationship.
Thus, the need of the hour is that the Centre and the State should enact laws and proper legislations should be drafted to govern this type of relation. So that the couple don’t face any kind of threat or humility from their family member or from the society. There should also be provisions which protects the child taking birth from the relation his proper care should taken which is primarily the duty of the father because the mother is already considered as the sufferer. This is needed so that the child is not abandoned and doesn’t become the victim which his parents took that is to part their ways. In the absence of a legislative framework the court though considers live in relationship as legal but gives different interpretations which in turn creates confusion by various approach taken by the courts. Due to absence of a legislation the court indirectly keeps them in a loop. Therefore, we are in a dire need of a legislation which would govern these relations and give a protection to the couple from the enemies, grant right to the child born and put the obligation on the father.
Issue of married couples in live-in-relationship
The Rajasthan court said that till the time centre or the state is not drafting a legislation there should exist certain guidelines or a format that can be followed. The court said that certain guidelines should be fulfilled before entering into live in relationship and should be according to the format.
The problem doesn’t end here, it rather gives birth to another problem that is what would be the course of action if a married individual without the dissolution of his/her marriage enters into live in relationship and if two individuals who are in different marriages get into live in relationship whether they would be provided protection by the court under the given format.
Taking into consideration this problem there have been many cases which provides protection and many lie contrary to the same. In the case of Leela Bishnoi and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan the court provided protection where one was married and other was unmarried and they together were living in live in relationship. The court observed that individuals fundamental rights should be protected which is primarily the duty of the state. Even if any illegal act or immoral act is committed then too the state should act according the due process of law and cannot act arbitrary. Even the convicted criminals are guaranteed with right to life and liberty as per Article 21. From here it can inferred the same right then also be given to them who are married and live in living relationship. They would be given protection under Article 21 even if an illegal act is done. Similarly, in the case of Manisha Devi and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors it was ruled that it is the choice of individual to choose his partner and has the liberty to live accordingly. If any wrong is done the authorities cannot take the law in their hand and instead have to act as per the law. However, plethora of cases have taken contrary views. First in the line is the case of Rashika Khandal and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, where the court acknowledged that no protection would be given to such couple by the court The case of Suman Kumari and Anr. Vs. State and Ors. reinforced the judgement of the court in D.Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal that the only requisites of a live in relations should be of legal age, qualified for marriage and the partners should be unmarried. Considering all this, protection would be granted to them.
Conclusion
Considering opposite and conflicting decisions of the co-ordinate benches of different courts giving rise to many opinions leading to confusion for further approach. Due absence of an exact legislation the problem by the co-ordinate is being transferred to the special/higher bench so that there is uniformity in the decision. The decision of the bench would act as a guiding principle for other courts.
There are various ways in which these opinions are going and thus this call for a stable and settled legislation. The elements, the protection, the beneficiaries have to be assessed in detail. The lawmakers need to make these laws in the near future to keep up with the current demands of the society and to incorporate them into the legal spectrum.
Author: Shreyankar Shahi & Anushka Singh, 2nd year Law student at Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur
