Though live-in relationships are not illegal, they do not offer the rights and social acceptance possible with marriages.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
In 2022, investigations began into the disappearance of a 26-year-old woman, Shraddha Walkar. Her murder, allegedly committed by by her live-in partner, ignited a media trial. Sections of the media obtained her social media conversations, and financial and travel details, from the police and her friends to retrace her key life decisions. The case, framed as violence within an inter-faith live-in relationship, failed to provoke debates on violations of personal data as a breach of the individual’s privacy. The trial made the crime a precautionary tale against deviating from conventional social norms.
Recent surveys show that arranged marriages are the norm in India. The choices of the youth are shaped by societal pressures and the lack of legal protection available to interfaith couples and those in live-in relationships. Shraddha’s case reinforced this sensibility behind relationships.
India’s democracy celebrates pluralism of social, religious, and political practices institutionally and in the everyday lives of citizens. The mechanisms of justice and law arguably secure the rights of each individual enshrined in the Constitution. This article connects the recent crimes against unconventional couples and the legal protection possible for them.
Seeking justice
The Domestic Violence Act, 2005, extends to live-in relationships. In 2006, the Supreme Court, in a decision on the complaint of a woman, Lata Singh, against her family’s threats to her husband, upheld inter-caste marriages. In following judgments, the Supreme Court extended the same protection to live-in relationships, stating, “Live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country”. The law offers protection against domestic violence to women in such setups and property rights to children of such couples. However, the complaints mostly seek protection against women’s parents.
In Chawali v. State of U.P. (2015), the Allahabad High Court, building on the conservatism towards marriage, warned against the emotional and psychological consequences of such alliances: “Not only prostitution but sometimes, as a result of ‘live-in relationship’, a woman faces deportation… or involvement in the commission of crimes. It is not that every live-in relationship may result with ill consequences… However, Courts have no parameter to find out the intent of boys and girls who are… in live-in relationship.”
Legal ambiguity has been a central issue in such cases, as these relationships are not illegal, but they do not offer the rights and social acceptance possible with marriages. The ‘intent’ becomes narrowly defined as the monogamous nature of the couple’s relationship and leaves out any other forms of companionship. In Chawali, the Court said, “Fundamental rights securing the individual rights of the citizens should be looked into from an Indian perspective.” Judgments view live-in relationships as a western concept. They separate western individual rights and protection from the Indian traditional and customary practices that place family as the basis of socialisation.
The Court’s appeal to a unified Indian perspective excludes the class and social inequalities that can impact citizens’ access to law. A homogenous culture overlooks the divergence in the experiences of women across caste, economic groups, literacy levels, and settlements. These aspects independently and collectively determine the demands for protection and the possibility of accessing formal legal mechanisms.
Negotiating law
The rights of live-in couples weighed against the rights of couples in marriages are tolerated but not accepted as natural to India. The judiciary’s interpretations expose the couples to vulnerability by legitimising customary practices through the trials. In 2024, for instance, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed an interfaith couple’s pleas seeking police protection against the woman’s family and registration of their marriage, observing that the union of a Muslim man with a “fire-worshipper” woman is not a valid wedding as per Muslim law. Further, the couple could not prove their financial dependence or long-term residence, which were critical to proving their relationship akin to marriage. The rules defining the criteria for establishing live-in relations do not account for the impossibility of opening a bank account or cohabiting in India’s rental market without proof of marriage or family ties.
The restrictive nature of such provisions allows social conservatism to find its way back to the secular institutions of justice in modern India. Under the garb of appeals to Indian traditions and perspectives, the judgments promote legal protection only through marriage. A 2023 High Court order held, “It reserves many rights and privileges to married persons to preserve and encourage the institution of marriage. The Supreme Court is simply accepting a social reality, and it has no intention to unravel the fabric of Indian family life”.
India’s religious and legal pluralism offers possibilities for rethinking interconnections between law and social practices. There are many efforts by non-state actors to support individuals expressing their autonomy. The success of these initiatives should lead to changes in attitudes towards socialisation and create supportive community networks, while promoting deliberations over the role of law as a corrective check to prevalent discrimination.
Megha Sharma is an Assistant Professor with the National Law School India University
Published – September 09, 2024 02:14 am IST