Live-in Relationships and Judicial Protection in India
The recent order by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2183/2024 and connected matters raises significant legal and societal questions regarding live-in relationships, particularly in cases where one or both partners are already married. The court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench underscores the complexity and conflicting judicial opinions on this issue. As an advocate with over two decades of experience, I find this case to be a critical juncture in the evolution of Indian jurisprudence on personal liberty, societal morality, and the rights of individuals in unconventional relationships.
1. The Legal Status of Live-in Relationships in India
The concept of live-in relationships, though not explicitly recognized under traditional Indian family laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or Muslim personal law, has gained judicial acceptance over the years. The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments like S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), has held that live-in relationships between consenting adults are not illegal, even if they are socially unacceptable. These rulings have affirmed that the right to live with a partner of one’s choice is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
However, the legal framework remains fragmented. While the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, recognizes live-in relationships as “domestic relationships” and provides certain protections to women in such arrangements, there is no comprehensive legislation governing the rights and obligations of partners in live-in relationships. This legislative vacuum has led to inconsistent judicial outcomes, particularly in cases where one or both partners are already married.
2. The Conflict in Judicial Opinions
The Rajasthan High Court’s order highlights a stark divergence in judicial opinions on whether protection orders should be granted to couples in live-in relationships where one or both partners are married. On one hand, courts have upheld the right to life and liberty under Article 21, granting protection to such couples (Leela Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, Manisha Devi v. State of Rajasthan). These judgments emphasize constitutional morality over societal morality, recognizing that individuals have the right to make personal choices, even if they are deemed immoral by society.
On the other hand, some benches have refused to grant protection, citing the sanctity of marriage and the potential disruption of the social fabric (Rashika Khandal v. State of Rajasthan, Suman Kumari v. State of Rajasthan). These rulings often rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), which laid down specific criteria for recognizing live-in relationships, including the requirement that both partners must be unmarried and hold themselves out to society as akin to spouses.
3. The Role of Constitutional Morality
The conflict between societal morality and constitutional morality is at the heart of this issue. While societal norms may view live-in relationships, especially those involving married individuals, as immoral or unacceptable, constitutional morality demands that the state protect the fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to life, liberty, and privacy. The Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized adultery, reinforces this principle by affirming that personal relationships, even if morally contentious, are not the state’s domain to regulate.
However, the question remains: to what extent should courts intervene to protect individuals in relationships that may violate existing marital bonds? While the right to personal liberty is paramount, it must be balanced against the rights of spouses and the broader societal interest in upholding the institution of marriage.
4. The Need for Legislative Clarity
The absence of a clear legal framework for live-in relationships has created confusion and inconsistency in judicial decisions. The Rajasthan High Court’s suggestion for a legislative framework is timely and necessary. A well-defined law could address several critical issues, including:
- Rights and Obligations of Partners: Clear guidelines on maintenance, property rights, and child support in live-in relationships.
- Protection for Women and Children: Ensuring that women and children in such relationships are not left vulnerable in the event of separation or abuse.
- Registration and Documentation: A formal registration process for live-in relationships, similar to the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code, 2024, which mandates registration and imposes certain liabilities on partners.
5. The Referral to a Larger Bench
The referral of this matter to a larger bench is a prudent step, given the conflicting views of coordinate benches. Judicial discipline, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in Sundaradas Kanyalal Bhathija v. The Collector, Thane (1990) and Ayyaswami Gounder v. Munuswamy Gounder (1984), requires that when coordinate benches disagree, the matter must be resolved by a larger bench. This ensures uniformity in the application of the law and upholds the integrity of the judicial process.
The larger bench will need to address the following key questions:
- Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolving their marriage, is entitled to protection under Article 21?
- Whether two married individuals, without dissolving their respective marriages, can claim protection for their live-in relationship?
- What are the limits of judicial intervention in protecting relationships that may conflict with existing marital bonds?
6. Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court’s order reflects the evolving nature of Indian society and the challenges posed by changing relationship dynamics. While the judiciary has made significant strides in recognizing individual autonomy and personal liberty, the lack of a clear legal framework has led to inconsistent outcomes. The referral to a larger bench is an opportunity to provide much-needed clarity and balance the competing interests of individual rights, marital sanctity, and societal norms.
As an advocate, I believe that any decision must prioritize constitutional morality while also considering the practical realities of modern relationships. The ultimate goal should be to protect the rights of all parties involved, including spouses, live-in partners, and children, while ensuring that the law evolves in a manner that is just, equitable, and reflective of contemporary societal values.
By
9891800100
#LiveInRelationship,#JudicialProtection,#ConstitutionalMorality,#RightToLifeAndLiberty,#Article21,#IndianJudiciary,#DomesticViolenceAct,#LegalReform,#SocietalMorality,#MarriageLaws,#FamilyLaw,#SupremeCourtOfIndia,#RajasthanHighCourt,#LegalAnalysis,#FundamentalRights,#PersonalLiberty,#GenderRights,#LegalFramework,#JudicialPrecedents,#LawAndSociety