Beyond Marriage | Navigating Protection, Maintenance, And Equity In India's Evolving Social Landscape

When Anjali and Rajesh moved in together in Pune five years ago, they considered it a natural progression of their relationship. They shared expenses, responsibilities, and even rented a home jointly. However, when the relationship ended abruptly, Anjali was left struggling to pay the rent and manage her life alone. Confused and anxious, she wondered whether she had any legal recourse. Stories like hers are increasingly common in urban India, where social norms are shifting faster than legal recognition. While society debates morality, the law has quietly evolved to protect individuals in live-in relationships, particularly women, ensuring they are not left destitute after a breakup.

India's judicial recognition of live-in relationships stems largely from interpretations of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and various Supreme Court rulings. The landmark judgment in Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) clarified that a live-in relationship will be considered valid for the purposes of legal protection if it satisfies certain conditions: it should be of a long-standing, stable, and demonstrable domestic nature, and both parties should have consented to cohabitation as a couple. The Court emphasized that mere casual dating does not qualify, but relationships akin to marriage sharing financial responsibilities, joint residence, or social recognition can attract legal safeguards.

Beyond recognition, maintenance rights for partners in live-in relationships have evolved significantly. Traditionally, maintenance claims were confined to legally wedded spouses under Section 125 CrPC and relevant personal laws. Today, courts have extended these principles to women in live-in relationships under PWDVA, 2005, recognizing the potential for economic dependence and vulnerability. In D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who cohabited with a man in a relationship “in the nature of marriage” is entitled to maintenance if she can demonstrate cohabitation and financial dependence. The Court clarified that the nature and duration of the relationship, societal perception, and shared domestic life are key factors in determining eligibility.

Further, the Court in Sushma vs. Dharampal (2017) highlighted that financial contribution alone does not negate maintenance rights. Even if a woman earns her livelihood, she may still claim maintenance for a dignified standard of living if she had been financially dependent during the relationship. These interpretations underscore that the law prioritizes fairness and protection over formal marital status, ensuring that women are not left vulnerable due to social or cultural prejudices.

Legal protection also extends to property and inheritance rights, although in a limited sense. Courts have occasionally recognized that if partners jointly own property, equitable principles apply. While live-in partners do not automatically inherit each other's estate under Indian Succession Laws, a demonstrable contribution to property acquisition or household expenses can form the basis of civil claims for restitution or equitable relief. For example, in Charu Verma vs. Union of India (2021, Delhi High Court), the court granted temporary accommodation and monthly maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship, emphasizing that legal protection should prevent hardship rather than punish either party.

Despite these safeguards, practical challenges persist. Many women are unaware of their legal rights, and proving the nature of the relationship can be difficult. Courts rely on evidence such as joint bank accounts, rental agreements, photographs, social media interactions, or testimonies from friends and family. This emphasizes the importance of documentation: couples in long-term cohabitation should maintain clear records of shared responsibilities and agreements, not as a cynical precaution, but to protect mutual interests in unforeseen circumstances.

Recent judicial trends also highlight that maintenance rights are not limited to monetary support for daily expenses. Courts have recognized claims for educational support, housing, medical care, and even vocational training, depending on the partner's dependence. In Pratibha Singh vs. Ajay Singh (2022, Bombay High Court), the court awarded both monthly maintenance and educational support for a partner seeking to complete professional courses interrupted by the breakup, emphasizing that the law must account for long-term consequences of cohabitation on the dependent partner.

The law aims to balance individual freedom with protection against exploitation. Men in live-in relationships cannot evade responsibility simply because there was no formal marriage, and women cannot claim maintenance in casual or short-term cohabitations. Courts often consider financial contributions, mutual support, duration of cohabitation, and societal perception. As a practicing lawyer, it becomes clear that these interpretations are designed to prevent inequitable outcomes while respecting personal autonomy.

While urban courts increasingly support live-in relationship claims, rural and semi-urban areas often face societal resistance, requiring judicial discretion and careful interpretation. Legal literacy is therefore critical. Citizens must understand that living together confers both rights and responsibilities, and awareness can prevent disputes from escalating into protracted litigation.

To safeguard themselves in live-in relationships, individuals should take proactive legal and practical measures. This includes documenting shared residence and expenses through rent agreements, utility bills, and joint accounts, ensuring there is clear evidence of financial interdependence. Equally important is to communicate intentions clearly, so both parties understand the nature and expectations of the relationship. Maintaining evidence of cohabitation, such as photographs, records of joint social interactions, and testimonies from friends or family, can be invaluable in case of disputes. Individuals should also understand financial dependence, recognize mutual liabilities and obligations, and seek legal advice early to clarify rights related to maintenance, property contributions, and potential civil claims. Additionally, planning for contingencies through mutual agreements or cohabitation understandings can prevent conflicts, while being aware of procedural timelines under the PWDVA and CrPC ensures that maintenance or relief applications are filed promptly and effectively.

Internationally, live-in relationships are increasingly recognized. Countries such as Australia, Canada, the UK, and South Africa extend rights related to maintenance, property, and inheritance to cohabiting partners, reflecting a global trend to protect vulnerable parties without imposing formal marital constraints. India's jurisprudence aligns with this principle, demonstrating a progressive approach to personal freedom, gender justice, and equitable protection.

The broader social and legal message is clear: India is moving toward a framework where personal choices coexist with legal safeguards. Live-in relationships are no longer merely a social experiment; they carry responsibilities, rights, and protections under law. For women like Anjali, this legal recognition is not just abstract theory, it is the difference between financial insecurity and the ability to rebuild life with dignity.

To conclude, urban India is evolving socially, and so must legal awareness. Citizens must understand that living together can be legally recognized, entitling partners to protection, maintenance, and in some cases, restitution. Partners must also recognize their legal and moral responsibilities, as courts emphasize fairness and protection, not punishment. When society internalizes this understanding, live-in relationships can become a socially accepted and legally secure way of life, reflecting India's commitment to individual freedom, gender justice, and equitable protection under law.

Author is practicing advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Views Are Personal.