Legal and Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Live-in Relationships in India: A Doctrinal Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31305/rrijm.2026.v11.n03.014Keywords:
Live-in relationships, Cohabitation, Article 21, Domestic violence law, Judicial interpretation, India, Maintenance, Legitimacy, Family lawAbstract
Live-in relationships in India represent a structural reconfiguration of intimate partnerships beyond the institution of marriage. While such relationships remain socially contested, judicial developments increasingly situate them within constitutional protections of autonomy, dignity, and privacy. This article examines the doctrinal evolution of live-in relationships through case law and statutory interpretation, with emphasis on developments between 2024 and 2026. It argues that Indian law operates through a model of conditional recognition structured by the judicial construct of “relationships in the nature of marriage.” This model enables selective extension of rights while preserving the formal primacy of marriage. The resulting framework produces fragmentation across maintenance, property, and criminal law. The analysis demonstrates that recent jurisprudence consolidates autonomy-based reasoning but exposes unresolved tensions between constitutional principles and status-based statutory regimes. The article concludes that legislative intervention is necessary to establish doctrinal coherence, reduce uncertainty, and align legal regulation with evolving social practices.
References
1. Flavia Agnes, Family Law in India (2nd edn., Oxford University Press 2011) 45–47.
2. Tahir Mahmood, Family Law Reform in India (2nd edn., N.M. Tripathi 2017) 112–115.
3. Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 5 SCC 475.
4. Tahir Mahmood (n 2) 120.
5. Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (22nd edn., Allahabad Law Agency 2016) 3–5.
6. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.
7. Flavia Agnes (n 1) 89–92.
8. Kusum, Family Law Lectures: Family Law I (4th edn., LexisNexis 2019) 210–215.
9. Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527.
10. Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 5 SCC 475.
11. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600.
12. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.
13. Akanksha v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8090.
14. Delhi High Court, W.P. (Crl.) 2026.
15. Allahabad High Court, conflicting rulings (2026).
16. Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) LiveLaw (SC) 921.
17. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka, SLP (2026) pending.
18. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, s. 2(f).
19. Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141.
20. Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188.
21. Flavia Agnes, Family Law in India (2nd edn., Oxford University Press 2011) 102–105.
22. Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (22nd edn., Allahabad Law Agency 2016) 412–418.
23. Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 SCC 520.
24. Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483.
25. Paras Diwan (n 22) 420–422.
26. Ibid.
27. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law II (3rd edn., LexisNexis 2018) 156–160.
28. Kusum, Family Law Lectures: Family Law I (4th edn., LexisNexis 2019) 230–235.
29. Poonam Pradhan Saxena (n 27) 162.
30. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.
31. Paras Diwan (n 22) 415–418.
32. Tahir Mahmood, Family Law Reform in India (2nd edn., N.M. Tripathi 2017) 130–135.
33. Ibid.
