Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
Reena Wife Of Balwan D/o Shri Narendra - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2183/2024
Decided On : 29-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19 and 21 - Live-in-relationships - The court recognizes live-in-relationships as part of the right to life and personal liberty, despite societal disapproval. The court emphasizes the need for legislative clarity on the legal status and rights of individuals in such relationships. (Paras 4, 8, 13, 17)
(B) Judicial Precedents - The court discusses various Supreme Court judgments affirming that live-in-relationships are not illegal and must be protected under constitutional rights. (Paras 4, 6, 24)
Facts of the case:
The court addresses the legal status of live-in-relationships in India, highlighting the absence of specific legislation and the need for protection for individuals involved in such relationships. (Paras 1-3, 8, 13)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that live-in-relationships are not illegal but lack legal recognition, necessitating legislative action to protect the rights of individuals and children born from such relationships. (Paras 8, 13, 17)
Issues: The main issues include the legal recognition of live-in-relationships and the protection of individuals involved in such arrangements, particularly when one or both partners are married. (Paras 22, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court rules that while live-in-relationships are not illegal, they require legislative backing to ensure the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved, especially concerning children. (Paras 8, 13, 17)
Result: The matter is referred to a Larger Bench for clarification on the legal status of live-in-relationships and the protection of individuals involved. (Paras 42, 43)
No, a live-in relationship agreement cannot be legally notarized in India, as there is no specific legislation recognizing or providing for such agreements, and courts have emphasized the need for a statutory framework involving mandatory registration with a competent government-established authority or tribunal rather than notarization. (!) (!) (!)
Notarization by a notary public would merely authenticate signatures but would not confer legal recognition, enforceability, or protection equivalent to a registered agreement under a proposed scheme, which must include fixed liabilities (e.g., for child maintenance and female partner support) and oversight by district-level authorities. (!) (!) (!)
In the absence of legislation, any such agreement lacks binding legal status, and the court has directed governments to enact laws or schemes for proper registration to protect parties and children involved. (!) (!) (!)
Order :
1. India is a country, which is slowly opening its door for western ideas and lifestyles and the most crucial aspect amongst it, is the concept of 'Live-in-relationship'.
2. The live-in-relationship is an agreement in which two persons live together in a short or long term relationship. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') does not recognize the concept of live-in-relationship. Even in Muslim Law, no recognition has been given to such relationship as such type of relationship, without or outside the marriage, is treated as 'Zina'and 'Haram'. Such relationship is not permissible in Islam.
3. The idea of live-in-relationship may seem to be unique and appealing but in reality the problems likely to arise are many, as well as challenging. The status of a woman in such relationship is not that of a wife and lacks social approval or sanctity.
4. The right to live with a partner of one's choice is a necessary component of the right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court on several occasions has held that live-in-relationships are not illegal. In S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and Anr. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 600 , it has been held that living together is an aspect of the right to life and personal liberty. In Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma reported in 2013 (15) SCC 755 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that 'Live-in or marriage like relationship' is neither a crime nor a sin, though socially unacceptable in our country. The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is immensely personal. Similarly, in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of UP and Anr. reported in 2006 (5) SCC 475 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a live-in-relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence, even though it may be perceived as immoral.
5. The Constitution has given certain fundamental rights and freedom to the people. Under Article 19, citizens have a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and to reside and settle in any part within the territory of India. Similarly Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers right to life on every person. A person's wish to reside with a partner of his or her choice and establish a relationship is governed by the above mentioned rights and freedom.
6. The concept of such relationship was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal reported in 2010 (10) SCC 469 , and it has been held in para 33 which reads as under:
"33. In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married:-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. "
7. Thereafter, the distinction between ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ and ‘marital relations’ was discussed and considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Sarma (Supra) and it has been held in paras 37 and 38 as under:
"37. The distinction between the relationship in the nature of marriage and marital relationship has to be noted first. Relationship of marriage continues, notwithstanding the fact that there are differences of opinions, marital unrest etc., even if they are not sharing a shared household, being based on law. But live-in-relationship is purely an arrangement between the parties unlike, a legal marriage. Once a party to a live-in- relationship determines that he/she does not wish to live in such a relationship, that relationship comes to an end. Further, in a relationship in the nature of marriage, the party asserting the e
Live-in-relationships are recognized as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, but lack specific legal recognition, necessitating legislative action for protection.
Live-in relationships are legally recognized, and individuals have the right to choose partners, protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The right to live together in an interfaith relationship is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, guarding personal liberty against familial and societal coercion.
Live-in relationships involving married individuals do not equate to marriage and are unlawful, lacking essential characteristics of marriage, thus not entitled to protection under the Domestic Viole....
Compliance with the U.P. Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act and evidence of a domestic relationship are crucial factors in seeking protection for interfaith live-in relationships.
Live-in relationships involving a married person do not have legal recognition as marriages and do not qualify for protection under domestic violence laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
