The Rajasthan High Court’s Jaipur bench recently referred a critical legal question to a larger bench regarding the rights of married individuals involved in live-in relationships. The issue centers around whether married persons who enter live-in relationships with others, without dissolving their marriage, can seek protection orders from the court.
This question arises from conflicting judgments in previous cases, and the court decided that a larger bench is needed to settle the matter definitively.
Key Aspects of the Case
Live-In Relationships and Legal Recognition: Live-in relationships are not explicitly recognized under Indian law. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not provide provisions for such relationships. Similarly, Islamic law treats such relationships as “Zina” (adultery) and “Haram” (forbidden). This legal ambiguity has led to debates about the rights of individuals in live-in relationships, especially in terms of protection, maintenance, and the status of children born out of such unions.
Fundamental Right to Live with a Partner: The court recognized that the right to live with a partner of one’s choice is part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Several Supreme Court decisions, such as S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal (2010) and Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), have emphasized that live-in relationships are not illegal, even if they are not specifically recognized by statutory law.
Legal and Social Issues in Live-In Relationships: Individuals in live-in relationships, particularly women and children, often face societal and familial hostility. The lack of legal recognition can result in threats to life and liberty, leading many couples to approach the courts for protection. The court observed that the authorities, especially the police, are overburdened and often unable to respond promptly to these cases, resulting in delays and lack of protection.
Need for Legislation: The court pointed out that, despite the increasing acceptance of live-in relationships in India, there is no comprehensive legislation that provides rights and protection to individuals in such relationships. Without a clear legal framework, individuals, particularly women and children, face significant hardships. The court recommended that both central and state governments create appropriate legislation to address this gap.
Example from Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: The court noted that Uttarakhand has recently enacted a Uniform Civil Code (2024), which addresses live-in relationships by setting out specific procedures, rights, and liabilities for couples involved in such unions. This model is seen as a possible reference point for other states and the central government to follow.
Female Partners and Children’s Welfare: One of the significant concerns highlighted by the court was the vulnerability of female partners in live-in relationships. When these relationships break down, the women often suffer, particularly in the absence of legal protection. Additionally, children born out of live-in relationships should not be deprived of their rights to maintenance and protection simply because the relationship is not formally recognized as a marriage.
Court’s Directions:
Need for a Statutory Scheme: Until proper legislation is passed, the court suggested that a statutory scheme be established. This would involve a registration system for live-in relationships, where the partners would outline their responsibilities, including maintenance, child-rearing, and education costs. This scheme would also ensure that the legal liabilities of both male and female partners are clear.
Registration of Live-In Relationships: The court proposed that a competent authority or tribunal be established in each district to register live-in relationships and address grievances related to these relationships. This system would also assist in ensuring the welfare of children born from such unions.
Action Plan and Compliance: The court directed that its recommendations be sent to relevant government authorities, including the Chief Secretary and the Department of Law and Justice. The authorities were instructed to take the necessary steps to implement the court’s directions and submit a compliance report by March 1.
Conclusion:
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision highlights the urgent need for a legal framework to protect individuals in live-in relationships, especially women and children. By referring the matter to a larger bench, the court is seeking a comprehensive solution to the legal ambiguities surrounding such relationships. The recommendations, including a registration system and the establishment of a statutory scheme, are seen as crucial steps towards safeguarding the rights and welfare of individuals in live-in relationships, pending formal legislation.