Is a Live-in relationship Ethical or Unethical?
Is a Live-in relationship Ethical or Unethical?
INTRODUCTION:
In India, the recent trend of Live-in relationships is rapidly emerging, where a man and a woman live together without entering into a conventional marriage.
In Hinduism, Marriage is considered as a sacred institution that is the foundation of a stable family and a civilised society. The essentials of Valid marriage are stipulated under Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
Our Indian society considered the idea of Live-in relationships as Unethical. Because they preached holy matrimony since ages and social stigma attached to this concept that such kind of relationships should remain secretive as they are against the morality. There are may be chances of Inter-caste or religion matrimonial bonds that includes challenges related to severe physical assault, social ostracisation and economic boycott.
Also, the legitimacy of child and rights, and duties of parents and their offspring inter se depend upon a valid marriage between the parents at the time of childbirth-thus reality directly confronts the child born to an unmarried couple.
In the modern era, live-in relationships are widely accepted as ethical. Non-marital cohabitation embodies the broader cultural shift in individualism which causes couples(particularly among the younger generations) to prefer Live-in relationships over marriage, to avoid responsibilities, accountability and can check their compatibility before tying knots of marriage.
Thus, Live-in is preferred to enjoy freedom and equality in intimate relations without having to shoulder many obligations.
This article focuses on the ethical debate surrounding live-in relationships, exploring whether they are morally acceptable or not.
MEANING OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS:
Live-in relationships, refers to the relationship in which a man and a woman live together without being married, where they are romantically or sexually involved with each other either temporarily or permanently.
Younger generation preferred Live-in relationships over marriage as they wanted to explore temporary commitment before making a more permanent commitment through marriage.
In this, Non-marital cohabitation, couples enjoy more rights and privileges. This includes no interference in each other lives, no burden of responsibilities and not bind up by societal norms and values.
In India, Live-in relationships are not recognised under Indian law but not considered as a offence and illegal act. Hence, various explanations were given by our Hon’ble Supreme Court and high courts, in order to explain the newly emerging concept of live-in relationship.
RIGHT TO CHOOSE PARTNER UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law," has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass not just mere existence, but the right to live with dignity, autonomy, privacy, and freedom of choice. These expanded dimensions of Article 21 have played a critical role in legitimizing live-in relationships, which, though not codified under Indian family law, fall within the domain of individual liberty. The right to choose one’s partner, to cohabit without marriage, and to make personal life choices has been repeatedly upheld by the judiciary under the umbrella of Article 21. In landmark cases such as Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006) and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that consenting adults have the freedom to live together without fear of societal backlash or legal interference, reinforcing that such a choice falls within the protected sphere of privacy and liberty. Similarly, in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018), the Court clarified that even if a couple is not legally married, their decision to live together is not illegal or immoral, and is protected under Article 21. These rulings underscore the principle that the State cannot dictate personal and intimate decisions of individuals, including their choice to enter into a live-in relationship. While societal attitudes may still be conservative, the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 offers a shield against moral policing, harassment, and arbitrary restrictions on personal freedom. Therefore, live-in relationships, when based on mutual consent and adult choice, are not only legal but are also ethically protected as expressions of personal liberty under Article 21, even though formal legal recognition in terms of rights and responsibilities may still be evolving.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK RELATED TO LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA:
The is no specific law in the india for dealing with the nuances of a live in relationship in holistic manner. However, The Indian judiciary has interpreted live-in relationships through a constitutional lens, focusing on individual rights, dignity, and personal liberty. In the absence of specific legislation governing live-in relationships, the courts have played an interpretative role, giving legal recognition and protection under various existing laws.
Some of the provisions related to Live-in relationships in India are:
1.The Hindu Marriage Act,1955: Under this Act, Live-in relationship does not recognised as a valid union but the court held that a woman in a live-in relationships can claim maintenance under the act if she is able to prove that the relationship is akin to a marital relationship.
2.Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (Amendment)Act,2013: This Amendment of Domestic Violence Act,2005 includes ‘relationships in the nature of marriage ‘ within the definition of ‘Domestic relationship’. This includes Live-in relationships, and women in such relationships are entitled to Protection under the Act.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023: It provides for Criminal liability for offences like rape, adultery, and bigamy, which can also be applicable in cases of Live-in relationships.
Landmark Judgements for live-in relationship:
1.D. VELUSAMY v. D.PATCHAIAMMAI-
Facts:- The respondent, Patchaiammal, claimed maintenance from the appellant, D. Velusamy, alleging she was his wife and had lived with him in a marriage-like relationship.
Velusamy denied the marriage and argued that he was already married to another woman.
The dispute centered around whether their relationship could be considered a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Judgment:-The Supreme Court laid down five key criteria for a live-in relationship to qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage:
i)The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
ii)They must be of legal age to marry.
iii)They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried at the time.
iv)They must have voluntarily cohabited and shared a household for a significant period of time.
v)The relationship must be stable and long-term, not casual or for sexual convenience.
The Court clarified that:
“Merely spending weekends together or having a one-night stand would not constitute a domestic relationship.”
It also emphasized that a presumption of marriage could arise under Sections 114 and 50 of the Indian Evidence Act or Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam(BSA),based on the conduct and natural course of events
2.S. KHUSHBOO v. KANNIAMMAL & ANR.-
Facts:- Actress S. Khushboo, in a magazine interview, expressed her personal opinion supporting live-in relationships and premarital sex, stating that it was increasing among urban youth and should not be seen as immoral.
Following her statement, multiple criminal complaints were filed across Tamil Nadu, alleging that her views were obscene, defamatory, and promoting immorality in society.
Judgement:- The Court held that live-in relationships are not illegal or unlawful in India.
It emphasized that morality is subjective, and individuals cannot be penalized merely for expressing opinions that differ from conservative societal norms.
The right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) protects an individual’s right to comment on social issues, including non-traditional relationships.
The Court observed that living together without marriage, by consenting adults, does not amount to an offence, and cannot be considered immoral or illegal per se.
3.INDRA SARMA v. K.V. SARMA-
Facts:- Indra Sarma, an unmarried woman, was in a live-in relationship with V.K.V. Sarma, a married man whose wife was living separately.
After their 18-year relationship, he abandoned her. She filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and protection.
Judgment:- The Supreme Court denied relief to Indra Sarma, ruling that her relationship with a married man did not qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage under the 2005 Act.
The Court observed:- “Relationship in the nature of marriage” must be between two unmarried persons who live together in a stable, long-term, socially acknowledged relationship.
A relationship where one party is legally married to someone else is not eligible for protection under this category.
However, the Court recognized that some live-in relationships do deserve legal protection, especially when:
i)There is emotional and financial dependence.
ii)The relationship is publicly acknowledged.
iii)There is shared responsibility, similar to marriage.
CHILDREN OF COHABITATION:
LEGAL IDENTITY AND THE CRISIS OF PATERNITY:
The growing recognition of live-in relationships by the judiciary suggests that they are not inherently unethical, though they do challenge conventional legal and moral norms. Across the globe, legitimacy of children is tied to valid marriage, and this creates a legal void when children are born out cohabitation without marriage. In India, Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 or Bharatiya Sakahya Adhiniyam (BSA) presumes legitimacy only within marriage, often disregarding scientific evidence like DNA. As a result, children from live-in relationships are left legally unrecognized, even when paternity is biologically proven, as seen in the Rohit Shekhar case.
Despite this, Supreme Court judgments in Tulsa v. Durghatiya, Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, and Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai have taken a progressive stance, affirming that children born out of such relationships must not suffer for their parents’ choices. The courts have acknowledged that these children deserve maintenance, legitimacy, and limited inheritance rights, reinforcing that the relationship itself may not be immoral, but the legal system’s inability to protect the child is the real concern.
While society may still view live-in relationships with skepticism, the ethicality of such relationships lies in their intention, stability, and mutual respect. If a live-in relationship is based on consent, care, and responsibility, especially toward any child born out of it, it holds moral ground. The ethical dilemma, therefore, arises not from the nature of the relationship itself, but from the legal and societal gaps that fail to safeguard the rights of those involved.
Live-in relationships, though outside the traditional framework of marriage, are not inherently unethical. The evolving judicial recognition of such relationships and the protection of rights of children born from them reflect a shift toward individual freedom, social justice, and human dignity. The real ethical concern lies not in the relationship itself but in the failure of law and society to ensure safeguards, especially for children’s legitimacy and identity. Therefore, when based on mutual consent, responsibility, and emotional commitment, live-in relationships can be considered ethical, and deserve legal clarity and social acceptance in a changing world.
CONCLUSION:
Live-in relationships signify a shift toward individual liberty and personal autonomy, standing in contrast to the traditional institution of marriage. While not a replacement for marriage, such relationships have become a viable social alternative, especially among educated and urban populations.
Despite their growing acceptance, live-in relationships suffer from the lack of a clear legal framework, resulting in uncertainty about the rights and responsibilities of partners and children born out of such unions. Courts have stepped in to provide protections, but inconsistency remains due to the absence of codified law.
There is a pressing need for legislative reform that recognizes live-in relationships not as exceptions, but as a social reality. Law must focus on the function of a relationship—emotional, financial, and parental contributions—rather than its formal label.
Ethically, these relationships, when based on consent, emotional commitment, and mutual respect, are not immoral simply because they defy traditional norms. Autonomy, dignity, and equality must guide our understanding of what is ethical—not mere convention.
The true concern lies in societal and legal reluctance to ensure protection, particularly for vulnerable partners and children. Justice demands that the law evolve—not to pass judgment, but to secure rights and reflect contemporary values.
AUTHOR: DAKSHITA RAJPUT
3rd Year Student from
KCC INSTITUTE, GREATER NOIDA