17/02/2023
On Tuesday, two incidents of murder catapulted live-in relationships into the limelight once again. In Delhi, a man, Sahil Gehlot, allegedly killed his partner, Nikki Yadav, and married someone else the same day. Meanwhile, in Maharashtra’s Nalasopara, a similar incident took place where a man, Hardik Shah, allegedly killed his live-in partner Megha Dhansingh Torvi and attempted to flee the site soon after. While both suspects have been arrested, the incidents have reignited the debate on women’s safety in live-in relationships, even prompting the chief of the National Commission for Women (NCW), Rekha Sharma, to state, “Girls are not safe in a live-in relationship.”
In India, there is no law that specifically addresses and governs live-in relationships – but as such, many courts have recognized the legality of live-in relationships. In 2006 and 2010, the Supreme Court reiterated this view, noting, "A live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic s*x does not amount to any offense (with the obvious exception of 'adultery'), even though it may be perceived as immoral.” Since then, adultery, too, has been decriminalized. The legality of live-in relationships in the country, then, stems from previous judgements and interpretations of Article 21 that guarantees the protection of right to life and personal liberty.
In some instances, protections boil down to the question of whether they’re similar to marriages. In 2010, the SC had laid out criteria for live-in relationships to come under “relationship in the nature of marriage” and be deemed valid. These included: The couple 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. In cases where one of the partners is married, however, protections aren’t as easily applicable, as it violates the clause of relationships having to be “in the nature of marriage.”