Revision mode hides the full explanations and keeps each section's key terms and lists, plus the Memory Capsule and Analysis Angle. Use it from your second read onward.
Core idea: There is still no central statute on live-in relationships. Indian law protects them piecemeal: courts treat them as lawful between consenting adults (Article 21), presume marriage after long cohabitation (Section 114 Evidence Act, now Section 119 BSA), give some remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act), and recognise the legitimacy of children. State UCCs (Uttarakhand 2024; Gujarat 2026) are the first statutes to make live-in registration compulsory.
Covers Not an offence, Presumption of marriage, Maintenance, Domestic Violence Act 2005.
Not an offence
Presumption of marriage
Maintenance
Domestic Violence Act 2005
Not an offence: S. Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010): living together is part of the right to life; premarital sex and live-in relationships are not criminal. Lata Singh v State of UP (2006): consenting adults may live together.
Presumption of marriage: Where a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife for a long period, the law presumes a valid marriage: Gokal Chand v Parvin Kumari (1952); Badri Prasad v Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978): a strong presumption in favour of marriage; S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v Suruttayan (1993): cohabitation as husband and wife raises a presumption of marriage and the children are legitimate; Tulsa v Durghatiya (2008); Dhannulal v Ganeshram (2015). The presumption is rebuttable and cannot be raised for a ‘walk-in, walk-out’ relationship.
Maintenance: Chanmuniya v Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2010) read ‘wife’ in Section 125 CrPC widely to include a woman in a long relationship of marriage-like nature; referred a question to a larger bench (whether a strict proof of marriage is needed). Lalita Toppo v State of Jharkhand (2018) held a live-in partner entitled to maintenance under the DV Act (not necessarily under Section 125) and noted the DV Act protects ‘relationships in the nature of marriage’.
Domestic Violence Act 2005: Section 2(f): ‘domestic relationship’ includes a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or joint family. Reliefs: Section 18 (protection orders), 19 (residence orders), 20 (monetary relief), 21 (custody), 22 (compensation).
Case Holding D. Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal (2010) Four conditions for ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’: (1) couple must hold themselves out to society as spouses…
Case
Holding
D. Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal (2010)
Four conditions for ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’: (1) couple must hold themselves out to society as spouses; (2) must be of legal age to marry; (3) must be qualified to enter into a legal marriage including being unmarried; (4) must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out as spouses for a significant period. A ‘keep’ or mistress, a weekend or one-night relationship is not covered
Indra Sarma v V.K.V. Sarma (2013)
Guidelines: duration of relationship, shared household, pooling of resources, domestic arrangements, sexual relationship, children, socialisation, intention and conduct. A relationship with a married man knowingly is not ‘in the nature of marriage’ and the woman may not get DV Act protection (the court suggested legislative reform)
Nandakumar v State of Kerala (2018)
Two adults can live together even if the man is below the marriageable age of 21; the couple’s live-in cannot be broken
Shafin Jahan v Asokan (2018) (Hadiya)
Choice of partner is part of Articles 19 and 21; courts cannot annul a marriage by exercising parens patriae over an adult
Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018)
Khap or family interference in adult marriages is illegal; guidelines for preventive, remedial and punitive measures
Bharatha Matha v R. Vijaya Renganathan (2010)
Child of a live-in or void relationship is legitimate under Section 16 HMA but takes only parents’ self-acquired property (before Revanasiddappa 2023)
Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun (2023)
Children of void and voidable marriages are entitled to parents’ property including ancestral share; the logic extends to children of long-term relationships
Lokesh B.H. v State of Karnataka (3 August 2026, reported)
Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) can apply to a live-in relationship that qualifies as ‘in the nature of marriage’ and where the intention was to marry; mere cohabitation, casual or one-night arrangements do not qualify; arrest safeguards of Arnesh Kumar apply (verify)
Supreme Court (April 2026, reported)
A child born of a live-in relationship is not ‘illegitimate’ and retains rights; courts must distinguish consensual relationships from sexual offences (verify)
Punjab and Haryana High Court (CRWP-2691-2026, 10 March 2026) and Delhi High Court (W.P.(CRL) 665/2026, 24 February 2026)
Article 21 protection extends to live-in couples, including married adults who are in live-in with another person; protection from family threats without commenting on validity of the relationship (reported)
Uttarakhand UCC Act 2024: Part on live-in relationships: compulsory registration with the Registrar for residents of the State (also those residing outside); parental consent for those under 21; registration of termination; penalties of imprisonment and fine for non-registration or false statements (amounts vary; do not memorise); children are legitimate; a woman abandoned by her live-in partner may claim maintenance.
Gujarat UCC 2026: applies to marriage and divorce, succession and live-in relationships; includes registration of live-in relationships and their termination, a prohibition on bigamy, and a rule that a marriage is valid only if neither party has a living spouse; excludes Scheduled Tribes and certain groups with constitutionally protected customs; applies to residents of Gujarat even outside the State; received Presidential assent (reported on 5 October 2026), with rules to be notified before it takes effect (verify).
Development Position Key authority Same-sex relationships Section 377 IPC decriminalised for consenting adults; no fundamental right to marry; SMA not read down; Court asked…
Development
Position
Key authority
Same-sex relationships
Section 377 IPC decriminalised for consenting adults; no fundamental right to marry; SMA not read down; Court asked the Union to set up a Committee under the Cabinet Secretary to look at rights of queer couples (ration cards, joint bank accounts, etc.); transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing law; 3:2 against recognising a right to adopt for unmarried and queer couples
Navtej Singh Johar (2018); NALSA v Union of India (2014); Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v Union of India (17 October 2023); Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019
Inter-religious and inter-caste marriages
Protected as a matter of choice; State cannot interfere
Lata Singh (2006); Shakti Vahini (2018); Shafin Jahan (2018)
Marital rape
Exception 2 to Section 63 BNS retains an exemption for sex with a wife aged 18 or above; Independent Thought v Union of India (2017) read down to protect wives under 18; constitutional challenges were pending in the Supreme Court at last report (verify)
Dowry and cruelty
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; dowry death BNS 80; cruelty BNS 85–86 (earlier IPC 304B and 498A); Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) arrest guidelines; Rajesh Sharma (2017) and Social Action Forum (2018) on family welfare committees
Child marriage
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006; voidable at the option of the child party; Supreme Court in 2024 issued guidelines for enforcement; a 2021 Bill to raise bride’s age to 21 was introduced but not enacted (verify status)
Registration of marriages
Mandatory directions: Seema v Ashwani Kumar (2006); Uttarakhand and Gujarat UCCs require registration
★Memory Capsule: Changing Dimensions of Marriage: Live-in Relationships
Memorise
Live-in relationship is not defined in any central statute; the DV Act uses ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’.
Velusamy’s test requires both to be unmarried and of marriageable age, and to have cohabited for a significant period.
A live-in partner is not automatically a ‘wife’ for Section 125 CrPC; courts apply a strictness test (Chanmuniya) and the DV Act gives alternative relief.
Supriyo: no right to marry; SMA not struck; adoption by queer couples not recognised by the majority.
★Analysis Angle: Changing Dimensions of Marriage: Live-in Relationships
Analyse / traps
Recent trend: The Supreme Court and High Courts have protected live-in couples under Article 21, extended Section 498A protection to marriage-like live-in relationships (2026, reported), and recognised legitimacy of children; State UCCs now regulate live-ins through registration. Expect direct MCQs on Velusamy’s four conditions, Indra Sarma, DV Act Section 2(f), and the UCC registration rule.
Last updated: . Notes are a revision aid; check official UGC sources for any rule or scheme that changes over time. Spotted a mistake? Write to netlawverse@gmail.com.