AI Overview...

Relationships Against Marriage Sanctity Lack Dignity

In today's evolving society, questions about relationships contrary to sanctity of marriage often arise, especially with rising live-in arrangements and challenges to traditional norms. A common query is whether such relationships align with dignity. Indian courts have consistently emphasized the sanctity of marriage as a cornerstone of social order, ruling that relationships undermining it—such as adultery or live-ins involving married individuals—do not qualify for legal protection and may conflict with personal and societal dignity. This post draws from key judicial precedents to unpack this legal stance.

Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance, as outcomes depend on individual facts.

Understanding Sanctity of Marriage in Indian Law

Marriage under laws like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not merely a contract but a sacred institution with social and legal sanctity. Courts have held that relationships lacking this solemnization do not equate to marriage.

• Solemnization is key: Though the marriage is not defined under Hindu Marriage Act, void or voidable marriage is defined under Sections 5, 11 and 12... either customary solemnization of marriage is required or performance of legal formality is a condition precedent to label that relationship as a marriage. Indubai Jaydeo Pawar VS Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 2054


• Physical intimacy alone does not suffice: Merely having a physical relationship between man and a woman also cannot be called as a marriage. Indubai Jaydeo Pawar VS Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 2054

This underscores that relationships contrary to sanctity of marriage, like casual live-ins without rites, lack legal recognition.

Live-in Relationships: When They Fall Short

Live-ins are increasingly common, but courts distinguish them from marriage, especially if one party is married.

• Not akin to marriage if adulterous: But none law abiding citizen who is already married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can seek protection of this Court for illicit relationship, which is not within the purview of social fabric. The sanctity of marriage pre-supposes divorce. Nisha Kumari vs State Of Punjab - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1538 X (12096) VS State of Punjab - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1367


• Criteria for 'relationship in nature of marriage': Must involve shared household, finances, socialization as couple, and duration—but not if bigamy/adultery involved. Ritu Sethi VS State of Punjab - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 781

In cases seeking protection under Article 21, courts deny relief: Live-in relationships involving a married person do not have legal recognition as marriages and do not qualify for protection under domestic violence laws. X (12096) VS State of Punjab - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1367

Adultery and Its Clash with Marital Dignity

Historically, Section 497 IPC criminalized adultery, but it was struck down in 2018 as unconstitutional.

• Manifestly arbitrary: Married woman treated as property of husband – Extra marital relationship with unmarried woman not covered – Relationship with married woman is adultery while that with unmarried woman is not. Joseph Shine VS Union of India - 2018 7 Supreme 1


• Violates dignity: Section 497 deprives a woman of her agency, autonomy and dignity. Joseph Shine VS Union of India - 2018 7 Supreme 1

Post-striking down, adultery remains a civil wrong (ground for divorce) but not criminal. However, courts still view it as eroding sanctity of marriage.

• Mental cruelty: False allegations of adultery or illicit relations amount to cruelty: Levelling of false allegation by one spouse to other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside wedlock amounted to mental cruelty. Alok Bharti VS Jyoti Raj - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 1010

Presumption of Legitimacy and DNA Tests

Section 112 of the Evidence Act protects marital sanctity by presuming legitimacy of children born during marriage.

• Strong presumption: Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy. Ramraj Patel vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 3542 Privacy includes sanctity of family life. Courts rarely order DNA tests without rebuttal evidence of non-access.


• Not routine: Compelling such tests without imminent need, imperils not only the sanctity of marriage, but legitimacy of the child. Hareesh @ Harishkumar VS A. S. Umesh Hareesh @ Harishkumar S/o A.C. Sanne Gowda vs A.S. Umesh S/o A.C. Sannegowda - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21779

In paternity disputes: It is burden of person who alleges or disputes paternity that he has not fathered child born to his wife. Hareesh @ Harishkumar VS A. S. Umesh

Dignity Under Article 21: Marriage vs. Illicit Ties

Dignity (Article 21) is central, but courts balance it with marital sanctity.

• No protection for illicit relations: Petitioners in live-ins with married partners denied safeguards: Petitioners relationships, therefore, not a relationship in the nature of marriage. Ritu Sethi VS State of Punjab - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 781


• Irretrievable breakdown: Long separations without reconciliation lead to divorce, as forcing ties causes cruelty: By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard. xxxxxx VS xxxxxx - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 413 Nayan Bhowmick VS Aparna Chakraborty - 2025 Supreme(SC) 2052

Even in progressive rulings like decriminalizing adultery, courts affirm: Adultery is a moral wrong qua the spouse and the family. Joseph Shine VS Union of India - 2018 7 Supreme 1

Key Case Insights

| Case ID | Key Holding |
|---------|-------------|
| Joseph Shine VS Union of India - 2018 7 Supreme 1 | S.497 IPC unconstitutional; adultery not crime but erodes dignity. |
| Nisha Kumari vs State Of Punjab - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1538 | No protection for married person's live-in; sanctity presupposes divorce. |
| Indubai Jaydeo Pawar VS Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 2054 | Physical relation ≠ marriage; needs solemnization. |
| Hareesh @ Harishkumar VS A. S. Umesh | DNA tests not routine; protect legitimacy presumption. |

Implications for Modern Relationships

• Legal protection limited: Live-ins may claim DV Act benefits if 'in nature of marriage,' but not if contrary to existing marriage. Priya Suman vs State of Rajasthan - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13207


• Divorce as remedy: Courts grant divorce on cruelty/desertion if ties irretrievably broken. Beena M. S. D/o M. G. Samuel VS Shino G. Babu S/o C. G. Babu - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 72


• Societal shift: While live-ins gain recognition (e.g., for unmarried adults), relationships contrary to sanctity of marriage remain unprotected to uphold dignity and order.

Key Takeaways

• Sanctity first: Courts prioritize solemnized marriages; illicit ties lack legal sanctity.


• Dignity aligned with law: Undermining marriage via adultery/live-ins misaligns with dignity, leading to denial of protections.


• Seek remedies wisely: For breakdowns, pursue divorce; avoid sham claims.


• Evolving but cautious: Law recognizes change but guards family unit.

In sum, Indian jurisprudence holds that relationship contrary to sanctity of marriage is not align with dignity, as it disrupts social fabric. While personal freedoms expand, marital bonds remain sacrosanct. For specific cases, professional advice is essential.

Word count approx. 1050. Sources from Supreme Court and High Court judgments.