ABSTRACT
Live – in relationships in India have increasingly come under legal scrutiny as a result of evolution of societal norms and the definition of family has broadened. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act 2005, offers important safeguards to women who are in live – in relationships which are outside of the formal marriage system, protecting them from violence, financial exploitation, and neglect. India’s judiciary have played a pivotal role in shaping this sector of law by interpreting what amounts to a “relationship in the nature of marriage,” focusing on factors like the length of cohabitation, mutual responsibilities, and public perception of the relationship. As the judiciary continues to outline the borders of live-in relationships, issues of uniform application, protection of vulnerable partners, and the need for more precise statutory definitions have come to the frontline. Overall, the legal response to live-in relationships demonstrates an expanding recognition of personal autonomy, individual dignity, and the necessity of safeguarding women across varied domestic arrangements.
Keywords
Live – in Relationship, Women, Domestic Violence, Marriage, Family
INTRODUCTION
Live – in relations once considered socially impermissible in India, have gently gained visibility as a result of evolution of our societal norms. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, deliberately employs gender – neutral and expansive terminology such as “domestic relationship” and “relationship in the nature of marriage” to extend protection beyond formally wedded spouses. As a result, women in live – in relationships may seek relief under the Act when subjected to abuse, abandonment, or economic deprivation. However, determining the qualification for protection in a nuanced legal exercise. Courts have developed certain indicators to differentiate legitimate domestic partnerships from casual relationships, thereby balancing social morality with constitutionality.
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS AND THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT: LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The PWDVA defines “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) as a relationship between persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, connected by consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. This Section is crucial because it establishes the scope of relationships covered by the act, and Courts have interpreted “relationship in the nature of marriage” to include live – in couples who presented as a couple and have a stable, continuing relationship. The progressive definition ensures that women who are economically and socially dependent on their partners and not left without remedies solely because their relationship lacks formal marital status. The reliefs under this Act of 2005 includes protection orders, residence rights, residence rights, monetary compensation, custody, and maintenance, all of which are equally available to women in recognised live – in relationships.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF LIVE – IN RELATIONSHIP
The Indian Courts have developed jurisprudence that balances statutory purpose with social realities. In the judicial precedent of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal [(2010) 10 SCC 469], the Apex Court explained that not all live – in relationships qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage.” The Court set out certain indicators such as shared household, pooling of resources, long term cohabitation and social presentation as husband and wife. It even mentioned that relationships based on only sexual convenience or short – term arrangements are not to have protection under the Act, 2005.
Further clarification made by Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755] where the Court laid down an illustrative list of factors to determine whether a live – in relationship resembles marriage during their cohabitation, shared finances, domestic arrangements, children and public accessibility of the relationship. The Court highlighted that the purpose of this Act of 2005 is to prevent exploitation and protect from domestic abuse in vulnerable relationships. But it cautioned against extending protection to relationships that are clandestine, adulterous otherwise lacking in permanence.
In another judicial precedent of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha [(2011) 1 SCC 14], the Court took an expansive view, observing that strict proof of marriage should not deprive women of maintenance when they had lived in a stable relationship resembling marriage.
The Court even recognised the autonomy of the adults to enter live – in relationships as in case of Nandakumar v. State of Kerala [(2018) 16 SCC 602], the Apex Court held that adults have the fundamental right to cohabit even without marriage, stressing that legal protection cannot be denied solely on grounds of unconventional domestic arrangements.
RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO LIVE – IN PARTNERS UNDER THE PWDVA
Once a live – in relationship qualifies as a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, the woman becomes entitled to full array of protection under PWDVA, 2005. She can seek protection order against physical, emotional, or economic abuse, residence order ensuring her right to secure accommodation in the shared household, monetary relief for expenses and losses, compensation for emotional distress and temporary custody of children out of that live – in relationship where necessary. Courts have acknowledged the right to reside in the shared household does not depend on the partner’s ownership of the property, thereby preventing arbitrary eviction from that property.
These rights thus reflect the objective of the Act, 2005 such as to safeguard women against domestic violence in all its forms, regardless of marital formalities. At the same time Courts remain vigilant to ensure that these protections are not misused to validate relationships which lack mutual commitment or those that infringe upon the rights of lawful spouses.
CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS
Despite progressive judicial interpretations, several significant challenges still persist. The absence of a statutory definition of live – in relationships leads to conflicting consequences with courts applying varying criteria depending on the facts of each case. Women in live – in relationships lacking social visibility or long term stability often struggle to demonstrate the elements required to qualify for protection.
Social stigma also discourages many women from openly asserting their rights and law enforcement agencies remain hesitant in recognising live – in relationships as legitimate domestic arrangements. Hence though the Act, 2005 is progressive in nature often falls apart in ensuring uniform protection in practice.
CONCLUSION
Recognising the rights of women in live-in relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 reflects a necessary shift in how the law responds to modern domestic arrangements. Although courts have worked to define what amounts to a relationship “in the nature of marriage,” the lack of a clear statutory standard still leads to uncertainty and uneven decisions. A more definite structure would help to ensure that women in such partnerships are not left unprotected simply because their relationships do not follow traditional forms. As social norms continue to evolve, the law must grow with them to uphold dignity, safety, and fairness across all domestic settings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- SUSMITA ROYCHOWDHURY
