Live-in relationship is an arrangement of living, where unmarried couples agree to live together and conduct a long going relationship like marriages, without getting married formally.[1] In India, there is no legislation which recognizes a live-in relationship. The rights and obligations of the parties in such a relationship and the status of children born out of such a relationship are also not defined in any specific law in India. However, the courts have taken a view that where a man and women live together as if they are husband and wife for a long time, the law will draw presumption as if they were married.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides for the protection, maintenance and right of Palimony (a form of alimony paid to a former partner in a non-marital relationship), to the female partner in a live-in-relationship, on her complaint.[2] Thus, the female live-in-partners and the children of live-in- couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Judicial System. Live-in-relationships may be immoral for an Indian Society, but no law makes such relationships illegal.

Basically, the word relationship in the nature of marriage is nowhere defined in any statute, but this word is used in Sec 2 (f) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter PWDV Act, 2005). According to the Sec. 2(f) of the Act 2005, domestic relationship as a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.[3]

But according to the Indian law there is only progressive judicial interpretation but no statue in place to govern this kind of a progressive relationship. The researcher feels that though the law gives rights to women who have entered into marriage and also gives them ground for staking claim to maintenance from their husbands, but when it comes to live-in relationships, rights of the woman are still in darkness because there is no substantial statue which gives them protections, judicial interpretation is dependent upon the leeway which the parliament can give to the judiciary by enacting laws and the present enacted acts of the parliament are not sufficient for the judiciary to give proper amounts of maintenance to the woman and the child who is born out of a live-in relationship.[4]

Differentiations:

It is important at the outset, to differentiate live-in relationships from other similar cohabitations:

1. A mistress (paramour or lover) refers to a man's long-term female sexual partner and companion, with whom he has intimate relations while married to another woman. The relationship is semi-permanent and generally secret. The man may pay for some of the woman's living expenses or provide her with an allowance. However, they do not live together, as in the case of a live-in relationship. But the area of differentiation as regards rights is a grey area, as Courts sometimes grant a mistress similar rights to as if she were a live-in partner.[5]
    
2. A concubine refers to a woman who cohabits with a man, in addition to his official wife. The practice of keeping concubines was followed by many Asian, Arab and European rulers. Their status is lower than that of the official wife and they hence enjoy limited rights. It was an involuntary and servile practice and is regarded as a form of sexual slavery. In Hindu Law, these women were known as ‘Avarudha Stris.' These are clearly different from women in live-in relationships, who generally enter the relationship voluntarily. Live-in relationships also need not solely be for the purpose of sexual relations as with concubines.[6]
    
3. Cohabitants is synonymous to live-in partners.[7]

Chapter I: Live-in relationship in India

A live-in relationship is an arrangement where a heterosexual couple lives together, without entering into a formal relationship called marriage. It need not necessarily involve sexual relations. It is an informal arrangement between intended parties, although some countries allow registration of such arrangements between the couples.[8]

People generally choose to enter into such consensual arrangements either to test compatibility before marriage, or if they are unable to legally marry or simply because it does not involve the hassles of a formal marriage. It may also be that couples in live-in relationship see no benefit or value offered by the institution of marriage or that their financial situation prevents them from being married on account of marriage expenses.

Whatever be the reason, it is quite clear that even in a traditional society, where the institution of marriage is considered to be sacred, an increasing number of couples choose a live-in relationship, sometimes even as a permanent arrangement over marriage. In such situations, various social, economic and legal issues have arisen and continue to do so.[9]

The practice of men and women living together without being in a relationship of formal marriage has been in practice for a long time. It was not at all considered immoral for men to have live-in relationships with women outside their marriage.[10] Concubines (avarudh stris) were kept for man's entertainment and relaxation.[11] In feudal society sexual relationship between man and woman outside marriage was totally tabooed and regarded with disgust and horror, as depicted in Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina, Gustave Flaubert's novel Madame Bovary and the novels of the great Bengali writer Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyaya.[12] Following Independence, as society matured, bigamy was outlawed and women became more aware of their rights.[13]

The Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P.[14] held that live-in relationship is permissible only in unmarried major persons of heterosexual sex. The live-in relationship if continued for such a long time, cannot be termed in as walk in and walk out relationship and there is a presumption of marriage between them.[15]

The Supreme Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav[16] held that where a man having a living lawfully wedded wife married the second time, his second wife had no claim to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even though she might be unaware of his earlier marriage.[17]

The Court refused to give any recognition to the fact that they had lived together even if their marriage was void. The man was allowed to take advantage of this, although he had failed to disclose his earlier marriage. The Supreme Court held that it would not grant any rights to the woman in such a live-in relationship of circumstance.[18]

In Malti v. State of U.P.[19], the Allahabad High Court held that a woman living with a man could not be equated as his wife. In this case, the woman was a cook in the man's house, and she stayed with him and shared an intimate relationship. The Court however refused to extend the meaning of the word wife as denoted in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to include such a live-in partner's maintenance claims.

In A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Balahamy[20] the Privy Council held that where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, unless the contrary can be proved. Again, in Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari[21] the Supreme Court reiterated the same principle, though it cautioned that the couple would not get legitimacy, if the evidence of them living together was rebuttable. These decisions only served to recognize marriages which were doubted, on the basis that a long-term live-in relationship existed. However, Courts did not recognize live-in relationships independent of marriage.[22]

The persons in long-term live-in relationships may be presumed by courts to be as a married spouse. Such decisions, while being delivered for upholding the rights of the women, contradict the matrimonial laws.[23]

In India bigamy is illegal and it is unclear if either the man or the woman is already married and having a living spouse, in what sense a live-in relationship can be equal to a marriage. Same issue came before the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma[24], court held that in such circumstances the status of women will be that of concubine and she cannot ask for maintenance.

Court further held that every live-in-relationship is not a relationship in the nature of marriage falling within the definition of domestic relationship. Unless this kind of relationship is not recognized in law, the careful scrutiny of the existing matrimonial laws indicates, the partners cannot be allowed to separate formally.

Either by choice or by circumstance, it is easy to get into live-in relationship but difficult to get out of this relationship formally. Further, the consequences of this relationship are still not addressed in law, for example, there is no law in place which deals with the division of property acquired by mutual gains of couple.[25]

The Supreme Court in D. Veluswamy v. D. Patchaiammal[26] has observed that a distinction has been drawn between the ‘relationship of marriage' and the ‘relationship in the nature of marriage' by the Parliament and has provided benefits under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, marriage and live-in relationship have been recognized as different aspects in altogether by the Indian Judiciary.

Judicial & Legislative Intent[27]

Relationship in the nature of marriage is akin to a Common Law Marriage.

Common Law Marriages require that although not being formally married:

1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses
2. They must be of legal age to marry,
3. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried,
4. They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.[28]

The judicial intent was clear that recognized the live-in relationships in the younger generations of India.

As far as the legislative intent is concerned, Department of Women and children had deposed before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development regarding the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Bill, 2002 as was tabled in the Lok Sabha these are the following lines:
Regarding the definition of the term ‘relative' figuring in the bill the department's view was that the definition of relative as given in the bill has two requirements. First, the person has to be related by blood, marriage or adoption, and second, he/she should be living with the respondent. The department was of the view that the definition excludes women whose marriages are legally invalid, women in bigamous relations and other consanguineous relations.

The committee also suggested that clause 2(i) of the DV Act dealing with the definition of the term ‘relative' should be suitably amended to include those women also who have been living in relationship akin to marriages and in marriages considered invalid by law.

The expression ‘a relationship in the nature of marriage' used under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 could, therefore, be interpreted as including all those situations which were not covered under section 125 Cr.P.C and section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (due to the use of the word ‘wife' in those provisions), or under sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (because proceedings cannot take place under the Hindu Marriage Act for the passing of any decree without solemnization of the marriage).[29]

Chapter II: Concept of Maintenance in Live-in relationship in other countries

There are many other countries in the world who recognize live-in relationships among adults, in this matter India has lagged behind. The way forward for India is to follow the examples of these countries and introduce laws for the protection of partners cohabiting without tying the sacred knot of marriage. Some of these countries are:

• Republic of France:

  In France, there are Civil Solidarity Pacts known as pacte civil de solidarite passed by the French Parliament in November 1999 that allows couples to enter into a union by signing before a court clerk. It is a contractual form which binds two adults of different sexes or of the same sex, in order to organize their joint life and allows them to enjoy the rights accorded to married couples in the areas of income tax, housing and social welfare. The contract can be revoked unilaterally or bilaterally after giving the partner three months' notice in writing.[30]As of 2013, PACS remains available to both- same and opposite sex couples after marriage and adoption rights were made legal for same-sex couples.[31]. But in France there is no aspect of maintenance covered.
   

• Philippines:

  In Philippines, live in relationship is recognized, and it governs the property relations by the rules on equal co-ownership, under Chapter- 4 Conjugal Partnership of Gains, Article 147 (family Code). [32] Philippines provides that where a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other just like a husband and wife, but without the benefit of marriage (or when the marriage is void). In such a situation, property acquired by both the spouses through their work, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares which shall be governed by equal co-ownership rule.[33] So the law in Philippines is clear on the maintenance aspect.
   

• United Kingdom (English Law):

  In the UK, live-in-couples do not enjoy legal benefits and status which are granted to married couples. People in such a relationship are literally free ‘from all legal bindings. Partners do not have inheritance right over each other ‘s property unless named in their partner will. State pension is available to the wives and civil partners (for same-sex couples who have legalized their status) of those who have retired after April 2010 is not similarly applicable to partners who live-in. Bereavement Allowance that is available to widowed spouses is also not available to live-in partners who have lost their mate.[34] However, the maintenance law seeks to protect the rights of a child born under such relationship. Both parents have the onus of bringing up their children irrespective whether they are married or cohabiting.[35]
   

• Scotland:

  The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced new rights and an obligation concerning cohabiting couples (The live in relation).[36] Section 25 (2) of the Act postulates that a court of law can consider a person as a co-habitant of another by checking on three parameters; (a) the length of the period during which they lived together, (b) the nature of the relationship during that period and (c) the nature and extent of any financial arrangements, subsisting or which subsisted during that period. In case of breakdown of such relationship, under Section 28 of the Act, a cohabitant has the right to apply in court for financial provision on the termination of the cohabitation otherwise by reason of death- i.e. separation. If a partner dies intestate, the survivor can move the court for financial support from his estate within 6 months.[37]
   

• China:

  In China, couple can sign a contract for live in relationship. The rights of a child are secured as a child born outside the wedlock has the same benefits as enjoyed by the child born under a marriage.[38] But the rights of partners to maintenance is not secured by the Chinese law.
   

• Ireland and Australia:

  The laws of Ireland and Australia also recognizes live in relationship. The family law of Australia recognizes ―de facto relationship between couples, while in Ireland the impetus is towards greater recognition to live in relationship as there has been demand for right to maintenance by separated live in couples.[39] In Ireland Cohabiting couples do not possess the same legal rights and obligations as married couples or civil partnerships in Irish law. This has important implications for a number of areas in your life - including inheritance rights, property ownership, custody and guardianship of children, adoption and fostering. There is a redress scheme for cohabiting couples who have been in a long-term cohabiting relationship.[40]
   

• United States of America:

  In USA concept of Palimony (maintenance to woman who having live-in-relationship) in a state of flux. In D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal[41] the Supreme Court examined trend of trying to apply or observe if the concept of palimony which arises out of the famous case of Marvin v. Marvin[42]and Taylor vs. Fields[43] in California Supreme Court can be applied in India as well.

24. In USA the expression `palimony' was coined which means grant of maintenance to a woman who has lived for a substantial period of time with a man without marrying him and is then deserted by him (see `palimony' on Google). The first decision on palimony was the well-known decision of the California Superior Court in Marvin vs. Marvin. This case related to the famous film actor Lee Marvin, with whom a lady Michelle lived for many years without marrying him and was then deserted by him and she claimed palimony. Subsequently in many decisions of the Courts in USA, the concept of palimony has been considered and developed.

The US Supreme Court has not given any decision on whether there is a legal right to palimony, but there are several decisions of the Courts in various States in USA. These Courts in USA have taken divergent views, some granting palimony, some denying it altogether, and some granting it on certain conditions. Hence in USA the law is still in a state of evolution on the right to palimony. [44]

25. Although there is no statutory basis for grant of palimony in USA, the Courts there have granted it have granted it on a contractual basis. Some Courts in USA have held that there must be a written or oral agreement between the man and woman that if they separate, the man will give palimony to the woman; while other Courts have held that if a man and woman have lived together for a substantially long period without getting married, there would be deemed to be an implied or constructive contract that palimony will be given on their separation. [45]

26. In Taylor vs. Fields (1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 186 the facts were that the plaintiff Taylor had a relationship with a married man Leo. After Leo died Taylor sued his widow alleging breach of an implied agreement to take care of Taylor financially and she claimed maintenance from the estate of Leo.

The Court of Appeals in California held that the relationship alleged by Taylor was nothing more than that of a married man and his mistress. It was held that the alleged contract rested on meretricious consideration and hence was invalid and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals relied on the fact that Taylor did not live together with Leo but only occasionally spent weekends with him. There was no sign of a stable and significant cohabitation between the two.[46]

There is a lot of scope to introduce the concept of Palimony in India, therefore there are some of amendments which can take place and thereby the concept of Palimony can be introduced in India.

Chapter III: Rights of partners and children to maintenance

Rights of women in live-in relationships

In the recent years the suggestions by various committees and NGO's have awaken the spirits of justice in the benefit of women specially aggrieved by such relationships.[47] Apart from this the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also given landmark judgments make its stance clear on the issue.

For illustration in the landmark case of D. Veluswamy v D. Patchaimmal[48] it was held a woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfils certain considerations, the Supreme court had observed that merely spending vacations together or a one night would not make it a domestic relationship.[49]

In order to get maintenance, the essential four conditions are:[50]

1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
2. They must be of legal age to marry.
3. They must be otherwise qualified to enter a legal marriage.
4. They must be voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period.

The Supreme Court observed that not all Live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. If a man has a ‘concubine' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant, it would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage. The National Centre of Woman made recommendations to the ministry of Women and Child Development to include female live-in partners within the ambit of S. 125, Cr.P.C in order to establish their rights and then make them entitled to right to maintenance.[51]

The Hon'ble Court also in the case of Abhijit Auti v. State of Maharashtra[52] and others supported the above principle and furthermore the Maharashtra Government showed a positive sign by accepting the Malimath Committee Report and also the Law Commission Report and held that if a live-in relationship continues for a very long time she is entitled to enjoy the rights of a wife but it was recently ruled out that a wife under section 125 of Cr.P.C is a divorced wife and the right to maintenance should only be enjoyed by a divorced wife and not by a female partner who merely cohabited with her male partner.[53]

Since in case of a live-in relationship there exists no marriage and hence no concept of divorce. Therefore, a female partner under live-in relationship should not be construed as a wife under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The decision of the Hon'ble Court is in the righteous spirit as empowering any women who cohabited with a man would result in misuse of the legal provisions under section 125 and would therefore be unfair on the part of the male partner as well.[54] Definition of the word "wife" in section 125 of the Code should be amended to include a woman who was living with the man like his wife for a reasonably long period.

As per the researcher, the need of the present hour is not to try bringing live-in relationships under the ambit of any existing law but to enact a new different law which would look into the matter of live-in's separately and would grant rights and obligations on the part of the couples thereby reducing the cases of misuse of existing laws and also to reduce cases of atrocities faced by the female partners under such relationships.

Rights of child born through Live-in relationship

To subside the social evils wherein illegitimate child was denied his rights the Hindu Marriage Act has settled legitimacy to children born through marriages which are not valid. Hence such definition creates within itself the ambit of live-in relationships and children born all through such relations. While still the other laws have not guaranteed such legality to children born through such relationships and therefore the status is shrinking for legal status of children which results in extensive misuse of the provisions and still escape liability.[55]

Hence the legality of a child is doubtful in other laws and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, if the live-in partners decide to separate the question of the future of the child is thrown out. Therefore, the laws regarding the guardianship should be rewritten to include within its scope the guardianship of children born through such relationships.[56]

Inheritance rights of children born out of live-in relationships

The Supreme Court held that a newborn born out of a live-in relationship is not entitled to claim inheritance in Hindu ancestral coparcenary property (in the case of an unbroken joint Hindu family) and can only claim a share in the parents' self-acquired property.[57] The Bench set aside a Madras High Court judgment, which held that children born out of live-in relationships were entitled to a share in ancestral property as there was a presumption of marriage in view of the long relationship.

Reiterating an earlier ruling, a Vacation Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatantra Kumar said,
In view of the legal fiction contained in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages), the illegitimate children, for all practical purposes, including succession to the properties of their parents, have to be treated as legitimate. They cannot, however, succeed to the properties of any other relation on the basis of this rule, which in its operation, is limited to the properties of the parents.[58]

A child can only make a claim on the person's self-acquired property, in case the child is illegitimate. It can also be interpreted in a way in which a child could lay a claim on the share of a parents' ancestral property as they can ask for that parents' share in such property, as Section 16 permits a share in the parents' property.[59] The researcher argues that it could be that the person is not only entitled to self-acquired property but also a share in the ancestral property.

Conclusion
As an influence of globalization, families are broken up and life partners are forced to stay alone in different countries of the world away from their spouses. May be that this societal change has given an escalation to the growth of live-in-relationship.

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (Section 125). The Researcher suggest that the definition of the term wife contained in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should be amended to include a woman having relationship in the nature of marriage ‘for a reasonably long period of time. This will enable woman to ask for maintenance from her live-in partner.

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that lawfulness of a child is proved only if any person was born during the continuation of a valid marriage between his mother and any man. Muslim law also acknowledges only those children as legitimate, who are the offspring of a man and his wife.

Thus, kids born out of live-in relationship were illegitimate in the eye of the then enforceable law. However, the Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs Mallikarjun & Ors.[60] remarked that nevertheless of the relationship between parents, birth of a child out of such relationship has to be viewed separate of the relationship of the parents. It is as plain and clear as sunshine that a child born out of such relationship is completely innocent and is entitled to all the rights and privileges open to children born out of valid marriages.[61]

This is the crux of Section 16 of the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence the researcher concludes that children born of live-in relationships should get the right to inherit their parent's property and some more suitable amendments should be made by the Parliament of India.

The Researcher wants to suggest that child born out of relationship in the nature of marriage should also be allowed to claim its share in ancestral coparcenary's property of its parents in addition to their self-acquired property. It is as plain and clear as sunshine that a child born out of such relationship is innocent and is entitled to all the rights and privileges available to children born out of valid marriages. This is the crux of Section 16(3) of the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which needs to be put on the canvass of reality.

Further the researcher recommends that following the model of US, UK and other countries discussed above:

1. The concept of palimony should be introduced in India.
2. Live- in relationships can not necessarily be recognized as a sacramental relationship but instead it should be realized as a relationship in the nature of a contract which is protecting both the partners.
3. The legislature/ Parliament should introduce a statue wherein, relationship in nature of marriage is provided recognition by a statue.

Bibliography
Acts/ Regulations/ Rules Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Books

1. Dalbir Bharati, Women and Law, (2008), New Delhi, S.B. Nangia-APH Publishing Corporation
2. Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, Satyajeet Atul Desai, Principles of Hindu Law, Volume 1(20th ed.), New Delhi, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007
3. Dr. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures Family Law II(3rd ed.), Nagpur: Wadhwa LexisNexis Butterworths

Articles

1. Lesley Gordon, Jenny Nobbs, Cohabitation: the new legal landscape.
2. Chetan Tripathy­, Live in Relationship- Review and Analysis
3. Atty. Fred " Common-law marriage (live-in relationships) in the Philippines‖ November 4th, 2006 in Family and Property law.

Websites Referred:

1. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/relationships_life_event.html, as visited on 22nd March 2020.
2. http://barandbench.com/brief/2/762/supreme-court-says-live-in-relationships-are-fine-but-dont-expect-ancestral-property(22.03.2020)
3. www.indialawjournal.com/volume2/issue_2/article_by_saakshi.html, (Accessed on 22nd March 2020)

End-Notes:

1. White corwley v Dean Winchester, [(1867) Law reporter 2 HC 269]
2. Live-in relationships and status of women in India, Wazida Rahman, International journal of law and legal jurisprudence studies
3. Live-in relationships impact on marriage institutions, Abishek Kumar Singh, NALSAR.
4. Law and live-in relationship in India, Anuja Agarwal.
5. Live-in relationships and its impact of traditional Indian society, Rajib Bhattacharya, International journal of multidisciplinary advanced research trends.
6. http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/cohabitation, KM Joseph, Decree on family law, last accessed: (3 Feb 2020)
7. Ibid.
8. Professor of Law, Commonwealth Fellow, UK and Head, Centre for Family Law, Nalsar University of Law, Justice City, Shameerpet, R.R. Distt., Hyderabad 500078.
9. Ibid.
10. Dayavati v. Kesarbai, AIR 1934 Bom 66.
11. Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, (2005) 2 SCC 33: AIR 2005 SC 422 the Supreme Court laid down that permanent maintenance can be granted u/s. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act while passing a decree of nullity. The logic given was that s. 25 allows the permanent maintenance to be granted at the time of passing of ‘any' decree, which may include a decree of nullity. But one doubts that even after this judgment any relief could be granted to a woman other than the one who has solemnized her marriage with a man as per the requirements of s. 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act and then applied for nullity u/s. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that her spouse had violated s. 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Despite this judgment the relief still remains based on the marriage solemnized. One doubts that the courts would entertain a petition for nullity with respect to an un-solemnized marriage.
12. Martin L. Parry, The Law Relating to Cohabitation (2nd Edn.) 7.
13. Narsingh Shetty v Pallavi Rao, MANU/SC/0807/2010, Para. 43
14. Lata Singh v State of UP, (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 478
15. Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, (2010) 9 SCC 209
16. Yamuna bhai Anantrao v Anantrao Shivram Adhav, 1988 SCC (Cri) 182
17. Akku Prahlad Kulkarni v. Ganesh Prahlad Kulkarni, AIR 1945 Bom 217, para 6.
18. HT Colebrooke (trans.), Dāya Bhāga and Mitāksarā, ch. II, sec. I, para 28.
19. Malti v State of UP, 2000 Cri LJ 4170 (All)
20. A. Dinohamy v W.L. Balahamy, (1928) 1 MLJ 388
21. Gokal Chand v Parvin Kumar, AIR 1952 SC 231
22. Kanwal Ram v. H.P. Admn, AIR 1966 SC 616.
23. Law, Poverty and Development - Chapter 10 - Women, Children and Those with Special Needs
24. Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma, AIR 2008 Del 7.
25. Multiplicity of sexual relations shall run counter to the notion of fidelity. Moreover, it is not relevant here to examine the impact of sexual fidelities of a man because his acts of indiscretion can be dealt with under other legal provisions. It is also not relevant because here we are talking about his liabilities which cannot be reduced by his greater infidelities.
26. D. Veluswamy v D. Patchiammal, ­AIR 2011 SC 479
27. For the use of pre-parliamentary materials in the interpretation of statutes see, Rupert Cross, Statutory interpretation, 160-61 (3rd edn., Butterworths). ‘The courts are now free to consult pre-parliamentary materials in the same circumstances as they can consult parliamentary materials, with the caveat that Parliament does not always follow the views set out in committee reports or even Government White Papers. Such documents will, of course, continue to be useful in identifying the purpose of the enactment.'
28. MANU/SC/0872/2010, AIR2011SC479, Para 33
29. Brahmati Kumari, (Journal of the Indian Law Institute )
30. Shobharam Sharma, Live-In-Relationship: An Individualistic Approach, Naya Deep, Pg.69
31. Nazish Kaleem, Relationship in nature of Marriage, Uttarakhand Judicial & Legal Review, page no-48.
32. Chapter 4, Art. 147 Conjugal Partnership of Gains.
33. Atty. Fred " Common-law marriage (live-in relationships) in the Philippines‖ November 4th, 2006 in Family and Property Law, available at http://jlp-law.com/blog/common-law-marriage-live-in-relationships-in- Philippines/, as visited on 22nd March 2020
34. http://www.liveintogether.com/live-in-laws-UK.asp, as visited on 22nd March 2020.
35. W.P. No. 16876/2001, MANU/UP/0288/2001.
36. Ibid. See citation 21.
37. Lesley Gordon, Jenny Nobbs, Cohabitation: the new legal landscape, 15 March 2020, Journal of the Law Society of the Scotland, available at http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/51-5/1003011.aspx
38. www.indialawjournal.com/volume2/issue_2/article_by_saakshi.html, (Accessed on 22nd March 2020)
39. Chetan Tripathy­, Live in Relationship- Review and Analysis
40. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/relationships_life_event.html, as visited on 22nd March 2020.
41. D. Veluswamy v D. Patchaiammal, MANU/SC/0872/2010.
42. Marvin v Marvin, (1976) 18 C3d660.
43. Taylor v Fields, (1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 18.
44. MANU/SC/0872/2010, Para 24.
45. MANU/SC/0872/2010, Para 25.
46. MANU/SC/0872/2010, Para 26.
47. Cr. M.C. No. 299/2009, decided on August 9, 2010 by High Court of Delhi: http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SND/judgement/10-08-2010/SND09082010 CRLMM2992009.pdf:
    (retrieved on 22nd march August 2020.)
48. D. Veluswamy v D. Patchaiammal, MANU/SC/0872/2010.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. Duff, Johnette, and George G. Truitt. 1992. The Spousal Equivalent Handbook: A Legal and Financial Guide to Living Together. New York: Penguin, NAL/Dutton.
52. Abhijit Auti v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 Bom 304
53. Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 19, 822.
54. http://www.indialawyers.wordpress.com/category/live-in-relationship/ (last visited on 26th March, 2020)
55. John D. Mayne, Hindu Law & Usage p. 950 (Bharat Law House New Delhi 14th ed 1996).
56. Charles Harpum, Adjusting Property Rights between Unmarried Cohabitees, 2(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies p. 277 (1982).
57. Mary Hayes, The Law Commission and the Family Home, 53(2) The Modern Law Review p. 223 (1990).
58. http://barandbench.com/brief/2/762/supreme-court-says-live-in-relationships-are-fine-but-dont-expect-ancestral-property(22.03.2020)
59. M.N. Srinivasan, Commentary on Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 43 (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2013). Supra note 18, s. 5 lays down that a marriage may be celebrated between two Hindus, only if the parties to the marriage has no spouse living at the time of the marriage.
60. Civil Appeal No. of 2011, Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12639/09, 2011(2)UJ 1342(S.C.)
61. In Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036, 1043 9th Cir. 1982 (male couples sought recognition of their marriage, but it was refused on the ground that homosexual couples can never procreate). See L.D. Borten, Sex, Procreation, and the State Interest in Marriage 102(4) Columbia Law Review 1091 (2002); W.C. Duncan, The State Interests in Marriage 2(1) Ave Maria Law Review 155 (2004).

Written By: Raunak Sood, 2nd year, Bennett University