Madras High Court Moots Treating Live-In Relationships As Marriage, Calls It A 'Cultural Shock' To India

Justice S Srimathy remarked that live-in relationships are a cultural shock to the Indian society but are happening widely everywhere. The bench added that the girls enter live-in relationship assuming themselves to be modern but later realise that the relationship does not guarantee any protection.

“Infact live-in relationship is a cultural shock to the Indian Society, but it is happening widely everywhere. The girls assume that they are modern and opt for live in relationship. But after some time when they realize that live-in relationship is not granting any protection as granted under marriage, the reality catches as fire and start burning them,” the court observed.

The court remarked that there is a need to protect the women who are caught in the modern culture. It remarked that live-in relationships could be recognised as similar to the Gandharva marriages (love marriage) that are part of the eight types of marriages in ancient India. The court thus noted that the women in live-in relationships could be protected by granting them the status of wife under Gandharva marriage.

“In live-in relationship the women ought to be protected by granting the status of “wife” under Gandharva marriage / love marriage, so that the women in live-in relationship, even if it is under turbulence, may be provided with rights as “wife”,” the court said.

The court made the observations while hearing an anticipatory bail petition filed by a man who apprehended arrest in a case involving false promise to marry. The prosecution case was that the man had sexual relationship with a woman, promising to marry her. Later when the parents disapproved, the couple left the parental house and went to Trichy to get married. The couple rented a house and stayed together.

The prosecution further submitted that when the complainant girl's father filed a woman missing complaint, the couple was brought to the police station where the petitioner promised to marry the girl. However, his family objected and threatened to kill the couple as it was an inter-caste marriage.

The petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against him are false and concocted. He submitted that he had discontinued the relationship long back after which the de facto complainant had lodged the present complaint. The petitioner also pointed out that he didn't consider marrying the girl as he did not have a job or income and was dependant on his parents for day-to-day expenses. Thus, arguing that he had not committed any offence, he sought for anticipatory bail.

The court observed that Section 69 was introduced in the BNS for criminalising sexual intercourse by deceitful means. In the present case, the court noted that the Section had not been included against the petitioner and directed the police to include the section.

The court noted that the relationship between the parties was not disputed and the petitioner had taken a stand that he could not marry the victim, after having sexual intercourse with her.

The court remarked that while minor girls were protected under POCSO Act, married major women or divorced women were protected under the law, the women who were falling prey to the live-in relationship concept were not being protected and continued to face mental trauma.

In the present case, the court noted that there was sexual intercourse and thus either the victim was entitled to be recognised as wife or the accused was to be charged with promise to marry. Since the petitioner had refused to marry, the court observed that he should be charged and prosecuted under Section 69 of BNS.

Thus, considering the gravity of the offence and noting that there was prima facie evidence, the court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. N. Rajapanth

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S. S. Manoj, Government Advocate(Criminal Side)

Counsel for Intervenor: Mr. A. Joel Paul Antony

Case Title: Prabhakaran v. The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37

Case No: CRL.OP(MD). No.6147 of 2025