INTRODUCTION
There is a clear increase in thze number of live-in couples in India. The practice of living in has been accepted in many cities of India, like Mumbai, Delhi, and Bangalore. The outlook of people on live-in couples has undergone drastic change in other regions. People from these parts consider such couples immoral and shameful, and regard them as going against culture. The law in India tried to recognise and give protection to such relationships.[1] But socially, acceptance lags as compared to provisions. In conservative towns, the issues of honour, respectability of families, and peer pressure are dominant over personal preferences. As a matter of legality, it’s an issue with implications for human dignity, autonomy,[2] and gender justice, among other things. It’s a question of whether people can enjoy their constitutional rights without being punished socially.[3]
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP
A live-in relationship is the living and maintaining a marriage-like relationship by two people without a marriage ceremony or legal process. Such a relationship is voluntary in nature and doesn’t involve religious or legal ceremonies like marriage.[4] In Indian culture, it’s believed that marriage is more of a sacred ritual than a contractual agreement. In smaller towns, marriage is more about family name, caste, religion, and status in society. Because of this, any other relationship outside marriage receives negative criticism from people. Modern education and changing social values have brought about this new phenomenon of live-in relationships, especially in smaller cities. People living in live-in relationships in smaller towns face pressures from people such as their families, landlords, and societies.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
The fundamental rights guaranteed can be used to argue the right of adults to enter into live-in relationships. Article 21 of the Constitution[5], which guarantees the fundamental right to life and liberty, includes aspects of dignity, privacy, autonomy, and the right to make personal and intimate choices. The essence of autonomy provided in the Constitution acknowledges an individual’s ability to live independently without undue State and societal intervention as he or she plans his or her own life. Making decisions about whom to love and enter into a relationship with is an indication of personhood and personal dignity. It has been reinforced by a changing judicial approach towards the issue.
For eg., Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. It was determined that an individual is entitled to choose his/her partners upon attaining adulthood. The case arose in the context of the situation of inter-caste marriage; the precepts laid down have broader implications than marriage per se since choosing to associate intimately with whom one wishes is an integral component of freedom. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal[6], courts held that even though a live-in relationship between consenting adults could be socially unacceptable among certain strata of society, it would amount to a criminal offence because they weren’t in conformity with social morality.
The philosophy got weightage by the Court’s ruling in the landmark judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.[7] The feature was that privacy was considered a right not only against disclosure of personal information, but also as the right of decisional privacy, i.e., the right to make certain decisions w.r.t. marriage and procreation. One can see that there is a crucial principle in the Constitution that the legality of personal union cannot depend on social approval or the morality of the majority. It means while exercising constitutional morality, it’s necessary to provide freedom of individuals engaged in union regardless of whether this act contradicts all the existing standards.
JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
There is no special law applicable to live-in relationships in India; there have been judicial pronouncements regarding live-in relationships. In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal[8], the Court has laid down circumstances when a live-in relationship can be recognised as a “relationship like marriage,” allowing such relationships to benefit from advantages of marriage, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005[9]. The Court said that not all live-in relationships qualify in such cases for protection by law in this way. Pointers provided by the Court include that such relationships must be regarded as those of a married couple by society at large, that both must be of suitable age for marriage and physically and mentally capable of contracting marriages.
This distinction between the marriage-like relationship and purely the casual one, which is only for convenience, was put up by the court in order to see that there will be no abuse done with regard to provisions of laws. Some people have criticised provisions established with respect to the case of Velusamy[10]. It’s based on the fact that these provisions are restrictive and vague w.r.t. establishing whether there is a relationship or not.
In the landmark case of Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma[11], it is quite clear from the court’s decision that live-in relationships per se are neither sinful nor a crime. The court was aware of the risks associated with women living in such relationships, recognising the necessity for legal protection of their interests. One of the advantages available to women in live-in relationships is under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.[12] A relationship “like marriage” comes within its purview.[13] Judicial intervention has been extended to cover children born out of live-in relationships. There have been rulings stating such children cannot be declared illegitimate because their parents never got formally married.[14] This suggests that the Indian judiciary made an effort to amend its laws to reflect reality. It is important to remember that mere amendment of the law doesn’t ensure social acceptance of reality.[15]
SOCIAL REALITY IN SMALL-TOWN INDIA
The experience of couples in live-in relations confirms that there is a gap between what is written in constitutions about rights and what’s happening in real life in smaller towns and semi-urban areas. Various sociological surveys confirm these unions continue to face criticism from society as people believe these relationships are socially unacceptable due to the influence of “Western culture” on Indians or against societal values. Couples are victimised socially, discriminated for opting to stay together without entering into wedlock.
Another factor is moral policing carried out by those who claim to be the protectors of culture. Civil society organisations and media in some instances have reported cases of interference in the lives of couples who engage in consensual adult activities citing moral reasons. Women who live together with their lovers are faced with the same stereotype related to gender roles and are subjected to strict evaluation of actions. Research carried out about honour-based violence in Indian castes shows that family and community opposition towards such relationships may be higher if relationships pose danger to cultural practices, caste, religion, and marriages. Emotional blackmailing, separation, and violence can arise due to opposition from families.
ROLE OF MEDIA AND CINEMA IN CHANGING THE DISCOURSE
The Indian media and films have played a significant role in transforming society’s perspective concerning relationships and companionship. Other issues like dating, cohabitation, and alternative families are discussed through online programs and social networking sites. This has helped to openly discuss unacceptable issues. Depiction of such issues through films and media doesn’t help in bringing any transformation of society. There exists a clear distinction between the younger generation and the older one w.r.t. issues of marriage and dating in urban and semi-urban societies. The young generation prefers modernisation and independence, while the latter prioritises dignity and tradition.
Legal considerations become important in view of their impact on the exercise of rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Greater knowledge of linkages between these areas will prompt citizens to seek rights concerning privacy, dignity, autonomy, and freedom of choice. Due to the advent of the digital age, new forms of abuse like cyber stalking, doxing, and cyberbullying are aimed at persons with unconventional personal behaviour. Such developments pose an important consideration in the context of legal measures to be taken to safeguard individuals against violations of their constitutional rights enshrined in the Constitution.
CHALLENGES IN LEGAL SPHERE AND NEED FOR REFORM
While the judiciary has started recognising the concept of live-in relationships, the absence of a legal framework that addresses matters related to live-in relationships results in a number of issues. Inheritance, succession, co-ownership, liability and division of property after separation may go unresolved since there is no specific legislation. While the rights of people who marry each other have been well-defined w.r.t. maintenance, inheritance, and ownership of property, the people who get into a live-in relationship find no clarity on rights. Women stand at more risk in cases of relationship breakups; there is no provision to protect people in such situations.
To bridge these gaps, it becomes imperative that the legislature make such legislation where there would be a provision for the legal status of live-in relationships, remedies to issues like maintenance, inheritance, sharing property obtained during period live-in, post relationship maintenance and rights of children born out of such relationships. It’s necessary to have legal awareness programmes to sensitise people on rights and duties in relationships. Civil societies and NGOs can be instrumental in developing principles within society. Acceptance of live-in relationships by society is not possible only through the judiciary but requires.
CONCLUSION
Live-in relationships in India are a result of evolving constitutional morality where the right to freedom and liberty of individuals is considered crucial[16]. Indian courts have stated that consenting individuals have the right to decide their own whether or not to get married; live-in relationships fall under the freedom of individuals.[17] This freedom is yet to be enjoyed by couples from small towns, since there is social stigma, patriarchy, and moral policing associated with it. Live-in relationships show conflict between modern constitutional morality and the conservative nature of Indian society. India progresses into a modern state, it should allow individuals to enjoy rights even against all social prejudices. There is a need for individuals to be able to make their decisions despite criticisms from society. Constitutional morality requires more than legality and should involve social life too[18].
Author: Mansi Mishra (GGSIPU, Delhi)
References:
[1] Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755 (India).
[2] INDIA CONST art 21.
[3] INDIA CONST art 21.
[4] D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 (India).
[5] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[6] S. Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600.
[7] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[8] D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 (India).
[9] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
[10] D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 (India).
[11] Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755 (India).
[12] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
[13] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, s 2(f).
[14] Tulsa v Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520 (India).
[15] Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1.
[16] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 (India).
[17] S Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600 (India).
[18] Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1 (India).
