Editorial: Protecting rights of live-in couples

Supreme Court’s latest ruling on legal protection against domestic cruelty to women in live-in relationships is a genuine attempt to bring criminal law in step with evolving social realities

In a patriarchal society like India, the idea of a couple living together without marriage is largely frowned upon. Many see it as an immoral act and an affront to cultural values. A live-in relationship is branded as a violation of tradition and cultural values. However, things are changing. Urbanisation, higher education, delayed marriages, greater economic independence for women and changing social attitudes have led to greater acceptance of live-in relationships. But legal hurdles continue to pose a challenge. The Supreme Court’s latest ruling on legal protection against domestic cruelty to women in live-in relationships is a welcome development. It is a genuine attempt to bring criminal law in step with evolving social realities. The top court has made it clear that legal protection, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be denied to women in live-in relationships that are “in the nature of marriage” merely because the couple did not formally marry. The court has reinforced the principle that legal protection must respond to the substance of intimate relationships rather than their form. The ruling has several important implications. Even without a formal marriage, women can now seek monetary relief, compensation and protection from physical, emotional, verbal and economic abuse. The judgement rightly recognises that relationships have become more diverse and that constitutional rights cannot depend solely on traditional social norms. It prevents abusive partners from escaping legal responsibility simply because no marriage certificate exists.

Instances of violence against women in intimate relationships often go unreported in India. Women in live-in relationships often face additional legal, procedural and social burdens. Despite progressive court rulings, live-in couples, particularly women, face substantial legal uncertainty. India has no dedicated legislation governing rights and duties of partners, financial obligations, inheritance, separation and maintenance. Unlike marriage, there is no automatic right to jointly acquired property. Live-in partners generally do not inherit property automatically unless they are covered by a will, nomination or joint ownership. Although courts have protected children born from long-term live-in relationships regarding legitimacy and certain inheritance rights, questions relating to guardianship, custody and succession can still involve complex litigation. In several rulings in the past, the Supreme Court had pushed back against moral vigilantism, affirming the right of consenting adults to choose their partners without intervention from society or the state. Despite this, there is a legal vacuum regarding the rights of parties who cohabit informally. There is no law to ensure protection of rights for the partners in a live-in relationship, and for the status of children born to such couples. Ideally, the law must recognise adults as rights-bearing citizens, not wards to be steered towards socially approved choices. In many countries, there is legal recognition of prenuptial agreements and domestic partnerships. But in India, live-in partners face a plethora of problems, including difficulties in opening joint bank accounts, insurance and visas.

---