Live-in Relationships in India: What Rights Does a Woman Really Have?

Introduction

For decades, women in live-in relationships in India lived in a fragile social and legal space, where their choices were often scrutinised and judged by society, and without the protection of formal marriage, women who invested years of emotional, domestic, and financial effort frequently found themselves without legal remedies, while men could easily avoid responsibility.

Today, that situation is changing. Live-in relationships are increasingly recognised as legitimate expressions of personal choice and mutual commitment, and the courts have affirmed that women in such relationships can access legal safeguards under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provided the relationship resembles marriage. In landmark rulings such D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469 and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, the Supreme Court outlined the conditions for legal protection, including residence, maintenance, and safeguards against abuse.

What is a Live-in Relationship-in Relationship

A live-in relationship describes a situation where unmarried couples cohabit under the same roof, sharing domestic life and emotional interdependence, even though they are not formally married.This type of relationship does not impose the traditional responsibilities of marriage on the individuals involved, and individual freedom forms the foundation of a live-in relationship. Essentially, it is simply living together without any legal obligation to one another.¹

Legal Recognition

Indian law does not explicitly define a ‘live-in relationship’ in any statute. However, judicial interpretation and constitutional principles have recognised such arrangements as lawful when they involve consenting adults. While live-in relationships are not recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, CrPC, or the Indian Succession Act, 1925, legislation like the DV Act has acknowledged them through Section 2(f), which includes relationships ‘in the nature of marriage’.²

The Courts have consistently affirmed that live-in relationships are not illegal merely because they lack formal marriage. Women in such relationships are protected as “aggrieved persons” under the DV Act, allowing them to seek maintenance, protection orders, and relief from abuse. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution further uphold the right of adults to choose their partners and domestic arrangements.

At the same time, legal recognition is conditional. While women in qualifying live-in relationships enjoy rights against abuse and neglect, these arrangements do not automatically confer all matrimonial rights, including inheritance or succession. The Courts may, however, provide compensation or monetary relief to prevent economic abuse or unjust enrichment.

Conditions for Qualifying

Not every cohabiting relationship automatically attracts legal protection. Courts carefully assess whether a live-in relationship resembles a marriage in substance rather than just in form. The focus is on identifying stability, continuity, and genuine domestic partnership. While no fixed formula exists, judicial evaluation generally considers factors such as:

• Duration of cohabitation: Longer relationships are more likely to be treated as marriage-like.

• Shared household: Whether the couple lives together in a common residence.

• Emotional and financial interdependence: Mutual support, joint finances, and shared responsibilities.

• Public recognition: Presentation of the couple as partners to family, friends, and society.

• Voluntary and consensual nature: The relationship must be entered into freely by both parties.

By weighing these factors, courts distinguish between genuine, marriage-like partnerships and casual or temporary associations. Only relationships meeting these criteria qualify for statutory protections under the DV Act, including residence, maintenance, and protection from abuse, ensuring that women are safeguarded from neglect, exploitation, or abandonment.

Difference Between Live-in Relationship and Casual Dating

Live-in Relationship-in Relationship	Casual Dating
Shared household and domestic life	No shared living arrangement
Long-term mutual commitment	Temporary or informal interaction
Financial/community interdependence	No financial or social obligations
Legal protection possible	No statutory protection

Legal Recognition and Key Judgments

With the rise of live-in relationships in modern India, the legal status and rights of women in such arrangements, particularly concerning protection from abuse, maintenance, and residence, became a pressing concern. Judicial precedents have played a pivotal role in clarifying these rights and shaping the legal framework governing live-in relationships.

In Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy, 1927 SCC OnLine PC 51, the court observed:

“Where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.”

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court in D. Velusamy (supra) set out the parameters for determining whether a live-in relationship can be considered “in the nature of marriage” to qualify for protection under the DV Act. These include factors such as the duration of cohabitation, shared household responsibilities, financial and emotional interdependence, public acknowledgment as a couple, and the voluntary, consensual nature of the relationship.

In Indra Sarma (supra), the Court emphasised that not every live-in relationship can be classified as ‘in the nature of marriage’. The recognition under law is intended to cover only those relationships that closely mirror marriage in stability and commitment, rather than to legitimise all non-marital cohabitations.

Significantly, statutory recognition has also begun to emerge at the State level. The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024, expressly acknowledges live-in relationships and, under Section 388, entitles a deserted woman to claim maintenance from her live-in partner, applying matrimonial maintenance principles mutatis mutandis.³

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The DV Act provides a legal framework to protect women from physical, emotional, mental, and economic abuse within domestic settings. Two provisions are particularly relevant for women in live-in relationships⁴:

• Section 2(f) — Domestic Relationship: This section recognizes relationships where individuals live or have lived together in a shared household. It explicitly includes relationships in the nature of marriage, even without formal registration. Courts rely on this provision to protect women in stable and committed live-in relationships, ensuring their rights to residence, maintenance, and protection are upheld, similar to married women.

• Section 2(a) — Aggrieved Person: This section defines any woman in a domestic relationship as an “aggrieved person.” Women facing physical, emotional, verbal, or economic abuse in such arrangements can seek remedies including protection orders, residence orders, and monetary relief.

Together, these provisions ensure that women in live-in relationships can access legal safeguards, especially where the relationship demonstrates stability, shared responsibilities, and mutual support, protecting them from exploitation and abuse. The DV Act provides remedies such as protection orders, residence orders, and monetary relief for women facing violence or abuse in domestic settings.

Government Position on Live-in Relationship Protection

The Government of India has affirmed in Parliament that women in live-in relationships are entitled to protection under the DV Act and other relevant statutes, provided the relationship is in the nature of marriage. This position reinforces judicial recognition and underscores that the state has a duty to protect women from domestic abuse, irrespective of formal marital status. Courts and welfare authorities are thus mandated to extend remedies and protective measures to women in live-in arrangements where there is evidence of cohabitation, mutual commitment, and domestic interdependence.⁵

Legal Protections: Maintenance, Safety, and Child Support

Indian law acknowledges that women in live-in relationships may face abuse and financial insecurity similar to that experienced within marriage. To ensure they are not left unprotected due to the absence of formal marriage, the legal framework extends civil protections.

The DV Act provides the primary statutory basis for maintenance, residence rights, protection, and child support for women in qualifying live-in relationships. Judicial interpretation has clarified that these provisions aim not to legitimise non-marital relationships but to safeguard women and children from exploitation and destitution, consistent with constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and personal liberty.

Judicial interpretation has played a crucial role in defining the scope of these protections. The Supreme Court in D. Velusamy (supra) confirmed that women in long-term, stable live-in relationships resembling marriage are entitled to relief under the DV Act. This stance was further clarified in Indra Sarma (supra), where the Court highlighted that only relationships meeting specific conditions are eligible, and casual or short-term arrangements do not attract protection under the Act.

Domestic violence under the DV Act goes beyond physical harm. Economic abuse, including financial deprivation and control, is expressly recognised. In Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 13 SCC 796, the Supreme Court confirmed that women in live-in relationships can claim broader civil remedies under the DV Act than those available under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

Courts at the trial level have also applied these principles in practical contexts. In one such instance, a Magistrate’s Court in Mumbai directed a man to pay maintenance to his former live-in partner and her child from a previous relationship, holding that long-term cohabitation akin to marriage is sufficient to attract legal responsibilities under the DV Act. The decision reaffirmed that sustained domestic arrangements cannot be disregarded merely because the parties were not formally married.⁶

The DV Act also protects children in live-in relationships. Section 20 empowers courts to grant monetary relief for maintenance, education, and medical care of both the aggrieved woman and her children. The Supreme Court, in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1, underscored that the law must prioritise the welfare and dignity of children, irrespective of the marital status of their parents. This child-centric interpretation was reinforced in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188, where the Court held that maintenance provisions must be construed purposively to prevent destitution and social injustice to women and children.

More recently, in Akanksha v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8090, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that live-in relationships are not illegal and emphasised the State’s duty to protect adults, especially women, from threats and violence.

Read More: Live-in relationships not illegal: Allahabad HC grants protection to 13 couples | SCC Times

Rights of Women in Live-in Relationships

1. Right to Protection Against Domestic Violence

Women in live-in relationships that resemble marriage are protected under the DV Act. Physical, emotional, verbal, sexual, and economic abuse are all recognised as forms of domestic violence⁷. Courts can issue protection orders⁸, residence orders⁹, and monetary relief¹⁰ to ensure safety and security, even if the couple is not formally married, provided the relationship demonstrates stability and mutual commitment.

2. Right to Maintenance

Women in qualifying live-in relationships can claim maintenance to ensure they are not left destitute. Courts have clarified that partners who cohabit like spouses have a legal duty to support financially dependent women, including in cases of economic abuse. Maintenance can be ordered beyond what is available under Section 125 CrPC, and under the DV Act.¹¹

3. Right to Child Custody and Support

Children born from long-term live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance, care, and support from both parents. Courts have recognised the legitimacy of such children where the relationship resembles marriage. In cases of separation, custody and guardianship are determined by the best interests of the child, and courts may appoint a guardian where necessary. Children are also entitled to claim maintenance and property rights from both parents in accordance with law.¹²

4. Right to Property

Live-in relationships do not automatically confer spousal property rights. However, courts may recognise property claims where the relationship is long-term, marriage-like, and involves joint contributions to property. ¹³

5. Right to Legal Action Against Harassment or Abuse

Women in live-in relationships can pursue civil and criminal remedies for harassment, coercion, or violence. Protection is grounded in the DV Act and constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments on Women’s Rights in Live-in Relationships-in Relationships

Relationships in the Nature of Marriage

A. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755

The case arose when a woman approached the Court seeking protection under the DV Act for harassment and deprivation of support by her live-in partner. The partner contended that they were not married, and therefore the provisions of the DV Act did not apply to their relationship.

The Supreme Court held that since the woman was aware that the respondent was already married, their live-in relationship could not be regarded as ‘in the nature of marriage’. Not all live-in relationships qualify, and theirs lacked the essential characteristics of marriage.

“The appellant’s status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act.”

However, the Court outlined certain factors to determine when a live-in relationship may be considered a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. These guidelines, while not exhaustive, listed the following characteristics:

• Duration of the relationship

• Shared household

• Pooling of resources and financial arrangements

• Domestic arrangements

• Sexual relationship

• Children born or raised in the relationship

• Socialisation as a couple in public

• Intention and conduct of the parties

B. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469

The Court emphasised that a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. In such marriages, although the couple is not formally married:

• They must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

• They must be of legal age to marry.

• They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

• They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

The Court held that a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the DV Act must satisfy the above requirements, and in addition, the parties must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the DV Act. Merely spending weekends together or engaging in a one-night stand would not constitute a ‘domestic relationship’.

The Court further observed that not all live-in relationships qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage for the purposes of the DV Act. To claim the protections of the DV Act, the conditions mentioned above must be fulfilled and supported by evidence. The Court specifically noted that if a man maintains a “keep” mainly for sexual purposes or as a servant, such a relationship would not be considered a relationship in the nature of marriage.

Adult consent and personal liberty — Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475

This case involved a young woman who wanted to marry a man of her choice, which was opposed by her family. While the primary issue was marriage, the Court also addressed personal liberty of a woman under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that “there is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence, she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes.”

Maintenance Rights in Long-Term Live-in Relationships — Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141

The question before the Court was whether a man and woman living together for a long period, even without fulfilling the legal requirements of a valid marriage, would raise a presumption of marriage entitling the woman to maintenance.

The Court held that a man who cohabits for a long period should be liable to pay maintenance if he deserts the woman, even if the formal legal requirements of marriage are not met. The man should not be allowed to take advantage of legal loopholes by enjoying the benefits of a de facto marriage without undertaking its duties and obligations, as such an interpretation would lead the woman to vagrancy and destitution, which Section 125 CrPC seeks to prevent.

The Court emphasised that:

“The DV Act gives a very wide interpretation to the term “domestic relationship” as to take it outside the confines of a marital relationship, and even includes live-in relationships in the nature of marriage within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Therefore, women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all the reliefs given in the said DV Act.”

The Court further opined that if monetary relief and compensation can be granted in live-in relationships under the DV Act, the same should also be permitted in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. Accordingly, a broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term ‘wife’ to include cases where a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance.

Fundamental right to autonomy in relationships — S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600

Though primarily a case concerning freedom of speech, the Court also elaborated on personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The appellant faced criminal prosecution for making statements regarding relationships outside marriage.

The Supreme Court observed that, admittedly, the appellant’s remarks did provoke controversy, since acceptance of premarital sex and live-in relationships is viewed by some as undermining the centrality of marriage. While there is no doubt that marriage is an important social institution in India, the Court recognised that certain individuals or groups may not share the same view. In fact, some indigenous communities within the country accept sexual relations outside marriage as normal, and even within the societal mainstream, a significant number of people see nothing wrong in engaging in premarital sex.

The Court emphasised that:

“Notions of social morality are inherently subjective and the criminal law cannot be used as a means to unduly interfere with the domain of personal autonomy. Morality and criminality are not coextensive.”

Presumption of Marriage — Dhannulal v. Ganeshram, (2015) 12 SCC 301

The case concerned a woman who cohabited with a man for several years and had a child during the relationship. The dispute arose over her claim to maintenance and property, with the man arguing that their relationship was not a marriage and she was therefore not entitled to any legal protection.

The Court held that:

“The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a long period. This presumption can only be rebutted by unimpeachable evidence, which the man failed to provide.”

Accordingly, the Court affirmed that the woman was entitled to legal protection, including maintenance and property rights, reinforcing safeguards for women in long-term live-in relationships.

Presumption of Wedlock in Long-Term Cohabitation — Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 SCC 520

The matter before the Court involved a woman in a long-term live-in relationship who had a child with her partner. The dispute arose over the legal status of the child and the nature of the relationship, with the contention that the relationship did not amount to a marriage.

The Court held that when partners live together for a long period as husband and wife, there arises a presumption in favour of wedlock. This presumption is rebuttable, but a heavy burden rests on the person seeking to deny the legal origin of the relationship to prove that no marriage took place. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.¹⁴

Practical Application of Law: Illustrative Example

Scenario 1:

Suppose a woman has cohabited with her partner for five years in a shared household. During this period, they share finances, domestic responsibilities, and present themselves publicly as a couple. The woman is financially dependent on her partner. Eventually, the relationship breaks down, and the partner withdraws financial support and subjects her to emotional and economic abuse.

Courts have consistently held that in such cases, the woman is entitled to protection under the DV Act even if the parties are not legally married. Where the relationship demonstrates stability, continuity, and mutual commitment akin to marriage, the woman qualifies as an “aggrieved person.”

She can claim:

• Protection orders to restrain further acts of domestic violence;

• Residence orders in respect of the shared household;

• Monetary relief, including maintenance and compensation for economic abuse.

Scenario 2:

Suppose the same woman’s cohabitation was brief, there was no shared household, and the relationship was not publicly recognised as marriage-like. After separation, she seeks protection or maintenance.

In such circumstances, courts have clarified that the DV Act applies only when the relationship exhibits stability, cohabitation, mutual commitment, and shared responsibilities. Temporary or casual cohabitation does not usually attract statutory protection.

Possible legal outcome:

• Claim for maintenance or protection may be denied, as the relationship does not meet the criteria of ‘domestic relationship in the nature of marriage’.

Scenario 3:

Suppose a woman in a long-term live-in relationship gives birth to a child. After separation, the partner refuses to provide maintenance, claiming that the child is illegitimate because the parents were not formally married.

Courts have emphasised that children born of stable live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance, care, and support, regardless of the parents’ marital status.

Relief available includes:

• Maintenance and educational support for the child;

• Monetary relief to meet medical and essential needs;

• Protection prioritising the child’s welfare and dignity.

Scenario 4:

Suppose a woman contributes financially and domestically to a long-term live-in relationship, including contributing to household expenses or property. After separation, the partner claims she has no rights because the relationship was never formalised.

In such situations, courts have recognised that while live-in relationships do not automatically confer spousal property rights, long-term, marriage-like cohabitation involving economic interdependence may justify monetary relief or compensation to prevent unjust enrichment and economic abuse.

Possible remedies include:

• Compensation for contributions to the household or property;

• Protection against economic abuse and destitution.

Bursting Common Myths About Women in Live-in Relationships-in Relationships

Myth	Reality
Women in live-in relationships have no legal rights	Women can claim protection and maintenance under the DV Act and other laws when the relationship is in the nature of marriage.
Maintenance is available only to married women	Courts have affirmed that maintenance may be granted even in long-term live-in relationships.
Only wives have protection from abuse	The DV Act does not limit protection to wives; women in qualifying live-in relationships have access to legal remedies.
Children born from live-in relationships are illegitimate	Where parents have lived together with mutual intent, children are recognised for maintenance and support rights.
Women in live-in relationships cannot claim property rights	While spousal property rights are not automatic, courts may grant compensation or relief for contributions to household or joint property.
Live-in relationships are always casual and unstable	Courts assess stability, duration, and mutual commitment; long-term, marriage-like cohabitation is recognised for legal protections.
Women choosing live-in relationships are morally or socially unprotected	Legal rights are independent of social perceptions; protection under law is based on the nature and quality of the relationship, not societal opinion.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. Do women in live-in relationships have any legal rights?

A: Yes. Women in relationships ‘in the nature of marriage’ are protected under the DV Act and other laws. They can seek protection, residence orders, and maintenance if the relationship shows stability, continuity, and mutual commitment.

Q2. Can women in live-in relationships claim maintenance?

A: Yes. Courts allow maintenance for financially dependent women in long-term live-in relationships under Section 125 CrPC or the DV Act, similar to married women.

Q3. Are women in live-in relationships protected from abuse?

A: Yes. The DV Act protects women from physical, emotional, verbal, sexual, or economic abuse, even if they are not legally married, provided the relationship is stable and marriage-like.

Q4. Are children born from live-in relationships considered illegitimate?

A: No. Children of stable live-in relationships have full rights to maintenance, care, and support from both parents, regardless of marital status.

Q5. What qualifies as a live-in relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’?

A: Stability, cohabitation, financial and emotional interdependence, shared household, and public recognition as a couple. Only such relationships attract legal protections under the DV Act.

Q6. Can women in live-in relationships claim property?

A: Property rights are not automatic, but courts may grant relief or compensation for contributions in long-term, marriage-like cohabitation to prevent unjust enrichment or economic abuse.

Q7. Can a woman take legal action against harassment even if she is not married?

A: Yes. Women in qualifying live-in relationships can file complaints under the DV Act or criminal law for harassment, abuse, or coercion.

Q8. Are live-in relationships legal in India?

A: Yes. Courts recognise live-in relationships between consenting adults as legal, and adults have the constitutional right to choose their domestic arrangements under Articles 14 and 21.

Q9. Can women in short-term or casual relationships claim maintenance or protection?

A: No. Only long-term, marriage-like relationships with mutual commitment, cohabitation, and shared responsibilities qualify for protection under the DV Act.

Q10. Is it true that women in live-in relationships have no rights and cannot claim maintenance?

A: No. Courts consistently recognise the rights of women in stable live-in relationships, including maintenance and protection against abuse.

Q11. Is it true that only wives have protection and children from live-in relationships are illegitimate?

A: No. The DV Act protects women in qualifying live-in relationships, and children born of such relationships have full rights to maintenance, care, and support.

Q12. Are women in live-in relationships socially or legally unprotected?

A: No. Legal rights depend on the nature and quality of the relationship, not societal perceptions. Courts recognise women’s rights in stable, marriage-like cohabitation, including protection, maintenance, and relief for economic contributions.

Conclusion

In India, live-in relationships are increasingly accepted as a legitimate choice, yet the law is still evolving. Areas such as inheritance, succession, and property rights between partners remain unclear, leaving women potentially exposed in cases of separation or the death of a partner. Since much of the protection relies on judicial interpretation of whether a relationship is “in the nature of marriage,” outcomes can vary. As such relationships become more widespread, clearer legislation and robust economic safeguards are needed to provide predictable, fair, and consistent protection, building on the rights already recognised by courts.

Key Takeaways:

• Live-in relationships are legal and socially recognised.

• Women in marriage-like cohabitation enjoy automatic legal protections.

• Protection includes maintenance, residence, monetary relief, and prevention of economic abuse.

• Children’s welfare is fully safeguarded.

• Law prioritises real-life circumstances, equality, and social justice over mere formalities.

Ultimately, the law affirms that women’s rights, safety, and dignity are non-negotiable, ensuring that personal choice in relationships does not come at the cost of justice or security.