Supreme Court bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has ruled that ending a consensual live-in relationship is not a criminal offence — emotional hardship alone cannot convert a consensual relationship into a sexual-assault case; the bench refused criminal prosecution but allowed maintenance for the child born from the relationship under Section 125 CrPC; live-in relationships are also covered under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for partners 'in the nature of marriage'.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट की न्यायमूर्ति बी वी नागरत्ना एवं उज्ज्वल भुइयाँ की पीठ ने फ़ैसला सुनाया है कि सहमति-आधारित लिव-इन रिश्ते को समाप्त करना अपराध नहीं है — केवल भावनात्मक कठिनाई सहमति वाले रिश्ते को यौन हमले के मामले में नहीं बदल सकती; पीठ ने आपराधिक मुक़दमा अस्वीकार किया परंतु रिश्ते से उत्पन्न बच्चे के लिए भरण-पोषण की अनुमति दी (CrPC की धारा 125); लिव-इन रिश्ते 'विवाह की प्रकृति में' भागीदारों के लिए घरेलू हिंसा से महिलाओं का संरक्षण अधिनियम, 2005 के तहत भी कवर।
Why in News
The Supreme Court of India has held that quitting a live-in relationship is not a criminal offence if the relationship was consensual. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of a woman who had lived with a man for 15 years and had a child with him; she sought criminal proceedings against her former partner after he married another woman, alleging sexual exploitation and harassment.
The court's reasoning: Once a person walks out of a voluntary, consensual live-in relationship, this does not automatically become a criminal offence. There is no legal binding similar to marriage. Emotional hardship alone cannot turn a consensual relationship into a criminal case of sexual assault or exploitation.
Examination of facts: The woman had willingly lived with the man for many years and had a child with him. Her counsel argued she had entered the relationship at age 18 after becoming a widow and was misled by a false promise of marriage; he also claimed the man had married multiple times. The court noted it could only examine the legal issue, not personal moral conduct.
Child's rights protected: Although the bench declined criminal prosecution, it clarified that the woman could seek maintenance for her eight-year-old child born from the relationship — accepting that the child's rights remain protected regardless of the nature of the parents' relationship. On the request for mediation regarding maintenance, the court issued notice limited to that issue.
Legal landscape: Live-in relationships are recognised under Indian law for certain civil protections but do not have the same legal status as marriage. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023) and related provisions allow maintenance claims for children born out of such relationships. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 also covers women in relationships 'in the nature of marriage'. Consent plays a key role in determining whether criminal charges like sexual assault can apply.
At a Glance
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
- Core ruling
- Ending a consensual live-in relationship is not a criminal offence
- Reasoning
- Voluntary and consensual relationship → no legal binding similar to marriage; emotional hardship alone cannot make it a criminal case
- Case facts
- Woman lived with man for 15 years and had a child; he later married another woman
- Allegations
- Sexual exploitation, harassment, false promise of marriage
- Court's narrow scope
- Could only examine legal issue, not personal moral conduct
- Child rights
- Maintenance for the 8-year-old child allowed under Section 125 CrPC; child rights protected regardless of parents' relationship status
- PWDVA 2005
- Covers women in relationships 'in the nature of marriage'
- Wider principle
- Consent is central to whether criminal charges can apply
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that ending a consensual live-in relationship does not constitute a criminal offence. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the order while hearing a woman who had lived with a man for 15 years and had a child with him.
The case:
- The woman had lived with the man for 15 years and had a child (now 8 years old) with him
- She sought criminal proceedings against her former partner after he married another woman
- Allegations: sexual exploitation, harassment, false promise of marriage
- She had entered the relationship at age 18 after becoming a widow
- Counsel claimed the man had married multiple times
The court's holding:
- A voluntary, consensual live-in relationship does not automatically become a criminal offence when one partner walks out
- There is no legal binding similar to marriage in such relationships
- Emotional hardship alone cannot convert a consensual relationship into a criminal case of sexual assault or exploitation
- The court could only examine the legal issue, not personal moral conduct
Child rights protected:
- The bench clarified that the woman could seek maintenance for the 8-year-old child born from the relationship
- Child's rights remain protected regardless of the nature of the parents' relationship
- On mediation regarding maintenance, the court issued notice limited to that issue and agreed to consider it separately
Legal framework for live-in relationships in India:
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 — provides for maintenance to wives, children (legitimate or illegitimate), and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. From 1 July 2024, this provision is now found in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — the new criminal-procedure code.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005:
- Enacted to provide more effective protection of rights of women victims of domestic violence in the family
- Section 2(f) defines 'domestic relationship' to include those 'in the nature of marriage' — courts have interpreted this to cover certain live-in relationships meeting specific tests (Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma, 2013)
- Provides for protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders, and compensation orders
- Does NOT criminalise the relationship itself; provides civil remedies
Consent is central:
- For criminal sexual offences (rape, sexual assault), lack of consent is the foundational ingredient
- Indian courts have repeatedly held that consensual relationships, even if they end painfully, do not retrospectively become non-consensual
- A false promise of marriage can be ground for criminal liability ONLY if the promise was made with no intention of keeping it AND was the proximate cause of consent — high evidentiary bar
Key Supreme Court precedents on live-in relationships:
- S Khushboo v Kanniammal & Anr (2010) — live-in relationships are not criminal under Indian law
- D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) — laid down five conditions for a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under PWDVA
- Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma (2013) — refined the test for 'relationship in the nature of marriage'
- Lata Singh v State of UP (2006) — adults have a right to choose their life partners; live-in relationships not illegal
- Pranay Kumar Swain v Sukanya Mohanty (2024) — courts cannot give live-in relationships the legal status of marriage
Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan:
- Justice B V Nagarathna: appointed to Supreme Court in August 2021; expected to be the first woman Chief Justice of India in September 2027
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: appointed to Supreme Court in July 2023
Wider context:
- Live-in relationships have grown in incidence in urban India; the legal framework continues to evolve through judicial interpretation
- Uttarakhand UCC (2024) — the first state UCC requires registration of live-in relationships, raising fresh legal-policy questions about state-level regulation
भारत के सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फ़ैसला सुनाया है कि सहमति-आधारित लिव-इन रिश्ते को समाप्त करना अपराध नहीं है। न्यायमूर्ति बी वी नागरत्ना एवं उज्ज्वल भुइयाँ की पीठ ने एक महिला की याचिका सुनते हुए आदेश दिया जो एक पुरुष के साथ 15 वर्षों तक रहीं एवं उससे एक बच्चा था।
मामला:
- महिला 15 वर्षों तक पुरुष के साथ रहीं; उनका 8 वर्षीय बच्चा है
- पुरुष द्वारा अन्य महिला से विवाह के बाद आपराधिक कार्यवाही की माँग
- आरोप: यौन शोषण, उत्पीड़न, झूठा विवाह वादा
- 18 वर्ष की आयु में विधवा होने के बाद रिश्ते में प्रवेश किया था
अदालत का निर्णय:
- स्वैच्छिक, सहमति-आधारित लिव-इन रिश्ता स्वतः ही अपराध नहीं बनता
- विवाह जैसा कोई कानूनी बंधन नहीं
- केवल भावनात्मक कठिनाई सहमति वाले रिश्ते को आपराधिक नहीं बना सकती
- अदालत केवल कानूनी मुद्दे की जाँच कर सकती है, व्यक्तिगत नैतिक आचरण की नहीं
बच्चे के अधिकार सुरक्षित:
- महिला 8 वर्षीय बच्चे के लिए भरण-पोषण माँग सकती है
- माता-पिता के रिश्ते की प्रकृति की परवाह किए बिना बच्चे के अधिकार सुरक्षित
भारत में लिव-इन रिश्तों का कानूनी ढाँचा:
दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता (CrPC), 1973 की धारा 125 — पत्नियों, बच्चों (वैध/अवैध), एवं माता-पिता को भरण-पोषण; 1 जुलाई 2024 से यह प्रावधान अब भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता (BNSS), 2023 की धारा 144 में।
घरेलू हिंसा से महिलाओं का संरक्षण अधिनियम (PWDVA), 2005:
- घरेलू हिंसा की महिला पीड़ितों के अधिकारों की प्रभावी सुरक्षा
- धारा 2(f) = 'विवाह की प्रकृति में' रिश्ते भी शामिल
- सुरक्षा आदेश, निवास आदेश, मौद्रिक राहत, संरक्षण आदेश
- रिश्ते को अपराधीकरण नहीं करता; नागरिक उपचार प्रदान करता है
सहमति केंद्रीय:
- आपराधिक यौन अपराधों (बलात्कार, यौन हमला) के लिए सहमति का अभाव आधारभूत तत्व
- सहमति वाले रिश्ते, चाहे कितने भी दर्दनाक रूप से समाप्त हों, पूर्वव्यापी रूप से ग़ैर-सहमति नहीं बन जाते
लिव-इन पर प्रमुख SC नज़ीरें:
- S Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) — लिव-इन रिश्ते अपराध नहीं
- D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) — PWDVA के तहत 'विवाह की प्रकृति वाले रिश्ते' के लिए 5 शर्तें
- Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma (2013) — परिष्कृत परीक्षण
- Lata Singh v State of UP (2006) — वयस्कों को जीवनसाथी चुनने का अधिकार
न्यायमूर्ति नागरत्ना एवं भुइयाँ:
- न्यायमूर्ति नागरत्ना: SC में अगस्त 2021 नियुक्त; सितंबर 2027 में भारत की पहली महिला मुख्य न्यायाधीश बनने की संभावना
- न्यायमूर्ति उज्ज्वल भुइयाँ: SC में जुलाई 2023 नियुक्त
व्यापक संदर्भ:
- उत्तराखंड UCC (2024) — पहला राज्य UCC लिव-इन रिश्तों के पंजीकरण की आवश्यकता रखता है
| Attribute | Marriage | Live-in relationship |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory framework | Hindu Marriage Act 1955; Special Marriage Act 1954; personal laws | No specific statute; judicially recognised; PWDVA 2005 Section 2(f) covers 'in the nature of marriage' |
| Mutual maintenance obligation | Yes — spousal maintenance | No automatic obligation; PWDVA may apply if 'in the nature of marriage' |
| Inheritance rights between partners | Yes — under personal laws | No automatic inheritance between partners |
| Children's rights | Full legitimate-children rights | Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS 2023; inheritance to parents' self-acquired property (Revanasiddappa 2011, 2023) |
| Registration | Mandatory in many states | Mandatory under Uttarakhand UCC 2024 (state-level); not at central level |
| Exit | Through divorce under personal law | Voluntary exit; not criminal; emotional hardship alone cannot convert to criminal case (2026 SC ruling) |
- 115 years cohabitation; child bornWoman lived with man for 15 years; had a child (now 8)
- 2Man marries another womanWalks out of the live-in relationship to marry
- 3Woman seeks criminal proceedingsAlleges sexual exploitation, harassment, false promise of marriage
- 4SC bench refuses criminal prosecutionVoluntary + consensual = no marriage-like binding; emotional hardship cannot convert consensual to criminal
- 5Child maintenance permittedSection 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS 2023 — child rights independent of parents' relationship
Static GK
- •Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973: Provides maintenance to wives, children (legitimate or illegitimate), and parents who are unable to maintain themselves; from 1 July 2024 the provision is in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — the new criminal-procedure code
- •Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005: Civil legislation enacted to protect women victims of domestic violence; Section 2(f) defines 'domestic relationship' to include those 'in the nature of marriage' — covering certain live-in relationships; provides protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders, compensation orders; does NOT criminalise the relationship
- •S Khushboo v Kanniammal & Anr (2010): Supreme Court held that live-in relationships are not criminal under Indian law; an unmarried couple living together is not unlawful
- •D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010): Supreme Court laid down five conditions for a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under PWDVA — couple must hold themselves out as spouses; of legal age; otherwise qualified to marry; voluntarily cohabit and held out as akin to spouses; for a significant period
- •Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma (2013): Supreme Court refined the test for 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under PWDVA, identifying eight distinguishing features
- •Lata Singh v State of UP (2006): Supreme Court held that adults have a right to choose their life partners; live-in relationships are not illegal
- •Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: New criminal-procedure code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 from 1 July 2024; one of three new criminal codes alongside Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (replacing IPC 1860) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (replacing Indian Evidence Act 1872)
- •Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC), 2024: First state-level UCC in independent India; enacted by Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly in February 2024; provisions include mandatory registration of live-in relationships, equal inheritance rights, and uniform divorce/marriage rules
- •Justice B V Nagarathna: Sitting judge of the Supreme Court; appointed in August 2021; expected to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in September 2027 (for a term of approximately 36 days)
- •Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: Sitting judge of the Supreme Court; appointed in July 2023; previously Chief Justice of Telangana High Court
- •Pranay Kumar Swain v Sukanya Mohanty (2024): Supreme Court held that courts cannot give live-in relationships the legal status of marriage; reinforced the distinction between marriage and live-in
Timeline
- 1973Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) enacted; Section 125 provides for maintenance of wives, children, and parents
- 2005Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) enacted; Section 2(f) covers relationships 'in the nature of marriage'
- 2006Lata Singh v State of UP — Supreme Court holds live-in relationships not illegal
- 2010S Khushboo v Kanniammal — live-in relationships not criminal; D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal — five conditions for 'relationship in the nature of marriage'
- 2013Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma — refined eight-feature test for relationships in the nature of marriage
- 2021 (August)Justice B V Nagarathna appointed to Supreme Court
- 2023 (July)Justice Ujjal Bhuyan appointed to Supreme Court
- 2023 (December)Three new criminal codes passed: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
- 2024 (February)Uttarakhand UCC enacted — mandates registration of live-in relationships
- 2024 (1 July)BNSS replaces CrPC; Section 125 CrPC equivalent now Section 144 BNSS
- 2024Pranay Kumar Swain v Sukanya Mohanty — courts cannot equate live-in to marriage
- 2026SC bench of Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan rules ending consensual live-in not a criminal offence; child maintenance allowed
- 2027 (September)Justice B V Nagarathna expected to become first woman Chief Justice of India
- →Court: Supreme Court of India
- →Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna + Ujjal Bhuyan
- →Holding: ending consensual live-in NOT a criminal offence
- →Reason: voluntary + consensual = no marriage-like binding
- →Bar: emotional hardship alone cannot convert consensual to criminal
- →Case facts: woman lived with man 15 years; child 8 years old; man married another woman
- →Allegations: sexual exploitation, harassment, false promise of marriage
- →Court's narrow scope: legal issue only, not personal moral conduct
- →Child relief allowed: maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS 2023 from 1 July 2024)
- →PWDVA 2005 = covers women 'in the nature of marriage'
- →Section 2(f) of PWDVA defines 'domestic relationship' broadly
- →Key precedents: Lata Singh (2006), S Khushboo (2010), D Velusamy (2010), Indra Sarma (2013)
- →D Velusamy = 5 conditions for 'relationship in the nature of marriage'
- →Indra Sarma = 8-feature refined test
- →Pranay Kumar Swain (2024) = courts cannot equate live-in to marriage
- →Justice Nagarathna: SC since August 2021; expected first woman CJI in September 2027
- →Justice Bhuyan: SC since July 2023; ex-CJ Telangana HC
- →3 new criminal codes (2023): BNS (replaces IPC 1860), BNSS (replaces CrPC 1973), BSA (replaces Indian Evidence Act 1872) — operative 1 July 2024
- →Uttarakhand UCC 2024 = first state UCC; requires live-in registration
Exam Angles
Supreme Court bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has ruled that ending a consensual live-in relationship is not a criminal offence — emotional hardship alone cannot turn a consensual relationship into a sexual-assault case; bench refused criminal prosecution but allowed maintenance for the 8-year-old child born from the relationship under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS 2023 from 1 July 2024); live-in relationships also covered under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 for partners 'in the nature of marriage'; key precedents = Lata Singh (2006), S Khushboo (2010), D Velusamy (2010), Indra Sarma (2013).
Q1. Which Supreme Court bench ruled that ending a consensual live-in relationship is not a criminal offence?
- A.CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justice S Ravindra Bhat
- B.Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
- C.Justices Hima Kohli and J B Pardiwala
- D.Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath
tap to reveal answer
Answer: B. Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India ruled that ending a consensual live-in relationship does not constitute a criminal offence. Justice Nagarathna was appointed to the Supreme Court in August 2021 and is expected to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in September 2027. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was appointed in July 2023 and was previously Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court.
Q2. Although the Supreme Court declined criminal prosecution, what relief did it permit for the child born from the live-in relationship?
- A.Custody only to the father
- B.Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS, 2023 from 1 July 2024) — child rights protected regardless of parents' relationship status
- C.Adoption by the state
- D.No relief permitted
tap to reveal answer
Answer: B. Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS, 2023 from 1 July 2024) — child rights protected regardless of parents' relationship status
The court clarified that the woman could seek maintenance for the 8-year-old child born from the relationship. Section 125 of the CrPC (1973) — now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 from 1 July 2024 — provides for maintenance of children (legitimate or illegitimate) who are unable to maintain themselves. The bench held that child rights remain protected regardless of the nature of the parents' relationship.
Q3. Under which statute are live-in relationships covered for civil protection in India?
- A.The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 alone
- B.The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 2(f) defines 'domestic relationship' to include relationships 'in the nature of marriage'
- C.Indian Evidence Act 1872
- D.Special Marriage Act 1954
tap to reveal answer
Answer: B. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 2(f) defines 'domestic relationship' to include relationships 'in the nature of marriage'
Live-in relationships are covered for civil protections under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005. Section 2(f) of PWDVA defines 'domestic relationship' to include relationships 'in the nature of marriage' — interpreted by the Supreme Court in D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) through five conditions, and refined further in Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma (2013) with an eight-feature test. PWDVA does NOT criminalise the relationship itself; it provides civil remedies.
Q4. Which 2024 state legislation became the first in independent India to enact a Uniform Civil Code, requiring registration of live-in relationships?
- A.Goa UCC
- B.Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC), 2024 — passed by the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly in February 2024
- C.Tamil Nadu Civil Code
- D.Maharashtra UCC
tap to reveal answer
Answer: B. Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC), 2024 — passed by the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly in February 2024
The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC), 2024 is the first state-level UCC in independent India, passed by the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly in February 2024. It mandates registration of live-in relationships, provides equal inheritance rights, and unifies marriage/divorce rules across communities. Goa has had a Portuguese-era civil code since 1867 (Portuguese Civil Code, 1867), but Uttarakhand is the first state to enact a fresh UCC under the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court has held in 2026 that ending a consensual live-in relationship is not a criminal offence — a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to permit criminal prosecution against a man who walked out of a 15-year live-in relationship and married another woman, while allowing maintenance for the 8-year-old child under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS 2023). The ruling continues a long line of Supreme Court precedent on the legal status of live-in relationships in India.
The legal architecture:
- Live-in relationships have no statutory definition under Indian marriage law; they are recognised through judicial interpretation
- Treated as a matter of personal autonomy and adult choice under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty)
- Limited civil protections via the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 under Section 2(f) — relationships 'in the nature of marriage'
- Maintenance for children born from such relationships under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS 2023)
- Inheritance rights of children born from live-in relationships clarified through judicial pronouncements (Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun, 2011, 2023 — children have inheritance rights to parents' self-acquired property)
- No legal binding similar to marriage — partners have no automatic mutual maintenance obligation
Key Supreme Court precedents:
- Lata Singh v State of UP (2006) — adults have a right to choose their life partners
- S Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) — live-in relationships are not criminal
- D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) — 5 conditions for 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under PWDVA
- Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma (2013) — refined 8-feature test
- Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun (2011, 2023) — inheritance rights of children
- Pranay Kumar Swain v Sukanya Mohanty (2024) — courts cannot equate live-in to marriage
- The 2026 Nagarathna-Bhuyan ruling — emotional hardship cannot convert consensual to criminal
Strategic significance:
- Personal autonomy vs societal expectations — the court's ruling protects the right to enter and exit relationships voluntarily
- Consent as the foundational ingredient of criminal sexual offences — the court explicitly rejects the argument that emotional hardship alone retroactively negates consent
- Child rights independence — the ruling reinforces that child welfare claims are distinct from disputes between parents
- Tension with state-level regulation — the Uttarakhand UCC 2024 mandates registration of live-in relationships, which could intersect with the SC's autonomy-based framework
Wider context:
- Three new criminal codes (2023) — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (replaces IPC 1860), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (replaces CrPC 1973), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (replaces Indian Evidence Act 1872) — operative 1 July 2024
- Justice Nagarathna is expected to be the first woman CJI in September 2027 — her jurisprudence on autonomy and dignity has been a significant marker
- Live-in relationships are increasingly common in urban India; the legal framework continues to evolve through judicial interpretation rather than statutory codification
Sociological dimensions:
- Class and caste dimensions — live-in relationships have been used by inter-caste and inter-religion couples to evade family or community sanction
- Gender dimensions — women in live-in relationships often have less economic security and face stigma when relationships end
- Generational shifts — urban youth increasingly view live-in as a precursor or alternative to marriage
- Tension between constitutional autonomy and traditional social norms
- Personal autonomyArticle 21 right to life and personal liberty has been read by the Supreme Court to include the right to choose one's life partner and form non-marital intimate relationships
- Consent as criminal-law foundationEmotional hardship cannot retrospectively negate consent; this protects against criminalisation of relationship breakdowns
- Child rights independenceMaintenance under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS protects children regardless of parents' relationship status
- Tension with state UCC regulationUttarakhand UCC 2024 mandates registration; this could be challenged on autonomy grounds
- Class and genderLive-in relationships often disadvantage women economically; legal framework needs to balance autonomy with substantive protection
- Statutory vs judicial frameworkIndia's live-in jurisprudence is judicially constructed rather than statutorily codified — produces flexibility but also uncertainty
- Inter-caste/inter-religion dimensionLive-in relationships have been used to evade family/community sanction in inter-caste/inter-religion contexts
- Balancing autonomy with substantive protection for economically dependent partners
- Inconsistency between state UCC regulations (Uttarakhand) and broader autonomy framework
- Lack of statutory codification — judicial interpretation produces uncertainty
- Stigma and social norms make access to legal remedies difficult
- Inter-caste/inter-religion couples face external coercion despite legal protection
- Inheritance rights of children clarified but enforcement uneven
- Evidence challenges in determining what counts as 'in the nature of marriage'
- Risk of criminalisation creep through broad readings of consent doctrines
- Legislative codification of basic legal status of live-in relationships at central level for clarity
- Distinct legal recognition for 'relationships in the nature of marriage' separate from 'casual cohabitation'
- Strengthen child-maintenance enforcement under Section 144 BNSS 2023
- Constitutional review of state UCC live-in registration mandates
- Public legal education on PWDVA Section 2(f) protections
- Gender-sensitive economic protection frameworks for women in long-term live-in relationships
- Consistent interpretation across high courts and the SC of Velusamy/Indra Sarma tests
- Independent civil-status registry for live-in declarations on a voluntary basis
Mains Q · 250wDiscuss the evolution of the legal status of live-in relationships in India through Supreme Court jurisprudence. How does the recent ruling in 2026 reinforce the principle of consent in criminal law? (250 words)
Intro: The Supreme Court in 2026 — bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan — has held that ending a consensual live-in relationship is not a criminal offence. The ruling continues a line of jurisprudence dating back to Lata Singh v State of UP (2006) through S Khushboo (2010), D Velusamy (2010), Indra Sarma (2013), and Pranay Kumar Swain (2024).
- Constitutional foundation: Article 21 right to life and personal liberty includes right to choose one's life partner and form non-marital intimate relationships
- Statutory framework: PWDVA 2005 Section 2(f) covers relationships 'in the nature of marriage'; Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS 2023 from 1 July 2024) ensures child maintenance; no criminalisation
- Judicial doctrine: D Velusamy 5 conditions; Indra Sarma 8-feature test; Pranay Kumar Swain — courts cannot equate live-in to marriage; 2026 ruling — emotional hardship alone cannot convert consensual to criminal
- Consent doctrine: foundational to criminal sexual offences; cannot be retrospectively negated by relationship breakdown; high evidentiary bar for false-promise-of-marriage cases
- Child rights: independent of parents' relationship status; protected through maintenance provisions
- Tensions: Uttarakhand UCC 2024 mandates registration of live-in relationships — possible autonomy-based challenge
- Challenges: economic dependence of women in long-term live-in; inter-caste/inter-religion external coercion; lack of statutory codification; uneven enforcement
- Way forward: legislative codification at central level; distinct recognition for long-term vs casual cohabitation; gender-sensitive economic protection; constitutional review of state mandates
Conclusion: The 2026 ruling reinforces the principle that consent cannot be retroactively negated by relationship breakdown — protecting the right to enter and exit relationships voluntarily while ensuring child rights remain protected. The next stage of jurisprudential development requires the legislature to codify the basic legal status of live-in relationships to balance personal autonomy with substantive protections for economically dependent partners.
Q1. Under which provision of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 are live-in relationships covered?
- A.Section 1(a) — definitions
- B.Section 2(f) — defines 'domestic relationship' to include those 'in the nature of marriage'
- C.Section 5(c) — protection orders
- D.Section 12(d) — residence orders
tap to reveal answer
Answer: B. Section 2(f) — defines 'domestic relationship' to include those 'in the nature of marriage'
Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines 'domestic relationship' to include those 'in the nature of marriage'. The Supreme Court in D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) laid down five conditions for what qualifies as 'in the nature of marriage', refined further in Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma (2013) with an eight-feature test.
Common Confusions
- Trap · Bench composition
Correct: Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan — not the CJI bench and not Justices Hima Kohli and J B Pardiwala
- Trap · Core holding
Correct: Ending a consensual live-in relationship is NOT a criminal offence; emotional hardship alone cannot convert it; the bench refused criminal prosecution but allowed child maintenance
- Trap · Section 125 CrPC current status
Correct: Section 125 of CrPC, 1973 — replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 from 1 July 2024; substantive provision largely the same
- Trap · PWDVA Section 2(f)
Correct: Defines 'domestic relationship' to include those 'in the nature of marriage' — covers certain live-in relationships meeting Velusamy/Indra Sarma tests; does NOT criminalise relationship; provides civil remedies
- Trap · D Velusamy test
Correct: D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) = 5 conditions for 'relationship in the nature of marriage' — couple holds out as spouses; legal age; otherwise qualified to marry; voluntary cohabit; significant period
- Trap · Indra Sarma test
Correct: Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma (2013) = 8-feature refined test; not the 5-condition Velusamy framework
- Trap · Lata Singh ruling
Correct: Lata Singh v State of UP (2006) = adults have a right to choose their life partners; live-in relationships not illegal; not the same as Khushboo (2010)
- Trap · S Khushboo ruling
Correct: S Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) = live-in relationships are not criminal; not Lata Singh and not Velusamy
- Trap · Pranay Kumar Swain ruling
Correct: Pranay Kumar Swain v Sukanya Mohanty (2024) = courts cannot give live-in relationships the legal status of marriage; reinforces marriage/live-in distinction
- Trap · Three new criminal codes
Correct: BNS 2023 (replaces IPC 1860); BNSS 2023 (replaces CrPC 1973); BSA 2023 (replaces Indian Evidence Act 1872); operative 1 July 2024
- Trap · Uttarakhand UCC
Correct: Uttarakhand UCC 2024 = first state UCC in independent India; passed February 2024; mandates registration of live-in relationships; not the Goa Civil Code (Portuguese-era 1867)
- Trap · Justice Nagarathna's career timeline
Correct: Appointed to SC August 2021; expected to be first woman Chief Justice of India in September 2027 for ~36 days; not currently CJI
- Trap · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's prior role
Correct: SC since July 2023; previously Chief Justice of Telangana High Court; not from Bombay HC and not from Delhi HC