Live-in relationships: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Note of caution */

2026-05-29T19:47:47Z

‎Note of caution

Jyoti: /* ‘Courts cannot order couples’ separation on habeas corpus petitions’ */

2026-04-18T09:30:23Z

‎‘Courts cannot order couples’ separation on habeas corpus petitions’

Jyoti: /* See also */

2026-04-16T10:37:11Z

‎See also

Jyoti at 10:36, 16 April 2026

2026-04-16T10:36:23Z

Jyoti: /* Immunity for men */

2026-04-16T10:29:21Z

‎Immunity for men

Jyoti: /* Adulthood: HC */

2025-12-27T06:06:15Z

‎Adulthood: HC

Jyoti: /* Cheating? Not if man had told partner he was married: .HC */

2025-05-23T07:30:52Z

‎Cheating? Not if man had told partner he was married: .HC

Jyoti: /* 2023: Allahabad high court */

2024-12-26T21:23:26Z

‎2023: Allahabad high court

Jyoti: /* Judicial verdicts */

2024-12-21T09:27:07Z

‎Judicial verdicts

Jyoti: /* Muslims */

2024-05-13T16:55:56Z

‎Muslims

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 29 May 2026
Line 431:		Line 431:

	Legal experts say the meaning of a live-in relationship should be understood with due caution. “The courts have been careful whenever they have interpreted live-in relationships. They do not talk about short-term arrangements but a longstanding commitment where the man and woman stay and share the same framework as that of marriage. The courts have time and again given clarity on that, and that for me is a fair amount of progressive view,” said senior lawyer Pinky Anand.		Legal experts say the meaning of a live-in relationship should be understood with due caution. “The courts have been careful whenever they have interpreted live-in relationships. They do not talk about short-term arrangements but a longstanding commitment where the man and woman stay and share the same framework as that of marriage. The courts have time and again given clarity on that, and that for me is a fair amount of progressive view,” said senior lawyer Pinky Anand.
		+
		+	==Quitting a live-in relationship is not a criminal offence: SC==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=28_04_2026_026_004_cap_TOI AmitAnand.Choudhary, April 28, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : While sympathising with women whose live-in partners have walked out of the relationship, Supreme Court said courts could not do much as ending a consensual relationship wasnot an offence.
		+
		+	Hearing the plea of a woman who was in a live-in relationship for 15 years, but whose partner married someone else despite a child being born to them, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said it could not allow her plea for a criminal case of sexual harassment and exploitation against him, as it was a consensual relationship.
		+
		+	“There was a consensual relationship and a child was born. Once he walks out, it is not a criminal offence. Where is the question of an offence when the relationship was consensual?” the bench said.
		+
		+	The court said there was no legal binding in such a relationship and that people should be careful about the vagaries of live-in relationships.
		+
		+	“Why did she go and live with him before marriage? They could have married. Now she is saying sexual assault,” the bench told her lawyer. The woman’s counsel said she was an 18year-old widow when she came in contact with the man, and that she was forced into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage. She told the bench that the man had marriedfour times.
		+
		+	Refusing to go into his alleged misdeeds, the bench said, “We can only sympathise with your client; she got fooled or whatever. She went with him, had a child, and lived with himfor 15 years.”
		+
		+	The bench said she could seek maintenance from the man for her eight-year-old child, as he was born out of that relationship. As her lawyer urged the court that mediation could be opted for to seek maintenance, the bench issued notice on that limited issue.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: IN]]

	==When a live-in relationship becomes a domestic relationship: SC==		==When a live-in relationship becomes a domestic relationship: SC==

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:30, 18 April 2026
Line 247:		Line 247:
	Rifana has every right to live with Hanize even outside her wedlock since live-in relationship has been statutorily recognised by the legislature itself, the court said. It referred to the Supreme Court decision this year in the Nandakumar vs State of Kerala case to state that livein relationship is recognised under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.		Rifana has every right to live with Hanize even outside her wedlock since live-in relationship has been statutorily recognised by the legislature itself, the court said. It referred to the Supreme Court decision this year in the Nandakumar vs State of Kerala case to state that livein relationship is recognised under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

		+	==Interfaith live-in no offence: HC==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=31_03_2026_001_005_cap_TOI March 31, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Prayagraj : Interfaith livein relationships are not prohibited and are not an offence under any law, Allahabad high court has ruled on a petition filed by a couple seeking protection from the woman’s family, reports Rajesh Kumar Pandey.
		+	The couple had sought a direction against the woman’s family not to interfere in their peaceful life. They said they had approached police, to no avail.
		+
		+	''' Court directs cops to probe allegations of live-in couple '''
		+
		+	Interference in a personal relationship would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals,” HC said in its March 18 order.
		+	The state govt’s counsel informed the court that both petitioners were ma jor and that no FIR had been registered against them in the case. The court said the petitioners are at liberty to approach the police with their grievances in case any harm is caused by private respondents or their associates and further directed police to probe their allegations and take necessary action to protect their “life, limb, and liberty”.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: IN]]

	==Living together for few days isn’t live-in: HC==		==Living together for few days isn’t live-in: HC==

@@ Line 712: / Line 712: @@
 =See also=
-[[Adultery: india]]
+[[Adultery: India]]
 [[Age of consent in India]]
@@ Line 728: / Line 728: @@
 [[Rapes in India: the legal position after 2013]]
-[[Category:India|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
+[[Category:India|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
 LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
 LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Name|ALPHABETLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
+[[Category:Name|ALPHABETLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
 LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]

@@ Line 712: / Line 712: @@
 =See also=
 [[Age of consent in India]]
@@ Line 726: / Line 728: @@
 [[Rapes in India: the legal position after 2013]]
-[[Category:India|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
+[[Category:India|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
 LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
 LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Name|ALPHABETLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
+[[Category:Name|ALPHABETLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
 LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 16 April 2026
Line 665:		Line 665:

	Going by the Velusamy interpretation, lower courts rejected women's claims for right to residence. In one case, although it was admitted that the partner introduced the woman to his neighbours as his wife, the court rejected her claim stating that her use of the phrase `forced cohabitation' (a euphemism for forced sex) indicated she did not voluntarily cohabit as was necessary . In another case, there was no dispute about a sexual relationship, or that the couple was considered married.Yet, the court held, “The question is not whether the society has recognized the parties as spouses, but rather if the parties had held themselves out to the society as spouses.The vital question involved in the present case is if the respondent number 1 has shown any indication that he intended to treat the complainant as if she was his wife.“ The court appears to view its role as that of affirming the man's perspective of the relationship, granting him immunity from the domestic violence law. In 2013, the Supreme Court judg ment in Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma seemed to take a fresh approach by laying down eight indicators of relationships akin to marriage.These involve duration of relationship, sharing of household, finances, housework, sexual intimacy, children, and relating to society as spouses. Yet, in the same case, the court rejected the claim arising from 18 years of cohabitation, “since the appellant was aware that the respondent was a married person even before the commencement of their relationship, hence the status of the appellant is that of a concubine or a mistress, who cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage.“ Both Velusamy and Indra Sarma illustrate how interpretations can pervert the potential of a radical law. The otherwise objective criteria in Indra Sarma is set aside on the reasoning that women in relationship with a married man are morally tainted and merit no legal protection in their private life. By the same token, such women also stand disentitled from legal protection against physical abuse. In essence, this places the responsibility for such relationships entirely on women, granting immunity to men in relation to their partner -even for domestic violence. The acceptance of the first-wife argument by the courts to shield him from assuming minimal responsibility rebels against the spirit of the law.		Going by the Velusamy interpretation, lower courts rejected women's claims for right to residence. In one case, although it was admitted that the partner introduced the woman to his neighbours as his wife, the court rejected her claim stating that her use of the phrase `forced cohabitation' (a euphemism for forced sex) indicated she did not voluntarily cohabit as was necessary . In another case, there was no dispute about a sexual relationship, or that the couple was considered married.Yet, the court held, “The question is not whether the society has recognized the parties as spouses, but rather if the parties had held themselves out to the society as spouses.The vital question involved in the present case is if the respondent number 1 has shown any indication that he intended to treat the complainant as if she was his wife.“ The court appears to view its role as that of affirming the man's perspective of the relationship, granting him immunity from the domestic violence law. In 2013, the Supreme Court judg ment in Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma seemed to take a fresh approach by laying down eight indicators of relationships akin to marriage.These involve duration of relationship, sharing of household, finances, housework, sexual intimacy, children, and relating to society as spouses. Yet, in the same case, the court rejected the claim arising from 18 years of cohabitation, “since the appellant was aware that the respondent was a married person even before the commencement of their relationship, hence the status of the appellant is that of a concubine or a mistress, who cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage.“ Both Velusamy and Indra Sarma illustrate how interpretations can pervert the potential of a radical law. The otherwise objective criteria in Indra Sarma is set aside on the reasoning that women in relationship with a married man are morally tainted and merit no legal protection in their private life. By the same token, such women also stand disentitled from legal protection against physical abuse. In essence, this places the responsibility for such relationships entirely on women, granting immunity to men in relation to their partner -even for domestic violence. The acceptance of the first-wife argument by the courts to shield him from assuming minimal responsibility rebels against the spirit of the law.
		+
		+	===No crime if married man lives in with another woman: HC===
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=28_03_2026_001_008_cap_TOI Rajesh Kumar Pandey TNN, March 28, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Prayagraj : Separating morality from law, Allahabad HC ruled that a married man in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman cannot be prosecuted for any offence. The court rejected a family’s attempt to criminalise the arrangement and reminded state authorities that protecting such couples is a fundamental police duty.
		+
		+	The bench of Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena delivered the March 25 order while hearing a petition from a live-in couple seeking protection from the woman’s family. The woman, 18, had moved in with the man despite him being married. Her family lodged an FIR at Jaitipur police station in Shahjahanpur, claiming he lured her through blandishment and that living with another woman while married constituted a crime.
		+
		+	The woman had submitted an application to the Shahjahanpur SP, stating she was an adult staying with the man of her free will.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]

	==Courting confusion==		==Courting confusion==

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:06, 27 December 2025
Line 28:		Line 28:

	The judge directed the Gurdaspur SSP to take a decision on the couple’s December 7 request and grant protection to them, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.		The judge directed the Gurdaspur SSP to take a decision on the couple’s December 7 request and grant protection to them, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.
		+
		+	===Adulthood. Even if below marriage age: HC===
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=05_12_2025_031_005_cap_TOI Ashish.Mehta, Dec 5, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Jaipur: The Rajasthan high court has held that two consenting adults have the right to be in a live-in relationship even if they have not attained the legal age for marriage.
		+
		+	Legal marriageable age for women in India is 18 years, and for men, 21. At 18, men and women are considered adults. Justice Anoop Dhand delivered the judgment on Monday while hearing a protection petition filed by an 18year-old woman and a 19-year-old youth from Kota.
		+
		+	''' ‘Not of right age doesn’t mean one can be deprived of rights’ '''
		+
		+	A copy of the order was uploaded.
		+
		+	Both had approached the high court seeking police protection, stating they had entered a live-in relationship by mutual consent. The couple executed a live-in agreement on Oct 27, 2025. However, the girl’s family opposed it and allegedly threatened to kill them. The petitioners told the court that despite submitting a written requestto the police in Kota, no action was taken.
		+
		+	Appearing for the state, Vivek Choudhary, the public prosecutor argued that since the boy had not completed 21 years of age, he could not legally marry, and, therefore, should not be allowed to be in a live-in partnership.
		+
		+	However, the HC rejected this reasoning, observing that the “right to life and personal liberty” is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and any threat to it amounts to a constitutional violation.
		+
		+	Justice Dhand emphasised that the constitutional duty of the State is to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. “Only because the petitioners are not marriageable by law, they cannot be deprived of their fundamental rights,” the court observed.
		+	The court also said live-in relationships are neither illegal, nor an offence under Indian law, directing Bhilwara and Jodhpur (Rural) SPs to verify the facts mentioned in the petition, particularly the threat perception, and provide protection to the couple, if needed.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]

	==Minors’ live in relationships are illegal: HC==		==Minors’ live in relationships are illegal: HC==

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:30, 23 May 2025
Line 184:		Line 184:

	In this case, the "promise to marry" was linked to the dissolution of marriage, the HC said. But it added a person could not decide on a divorce on his own; it had to be agreed to by their estranged spouses or decreed by court. "Therefore, an element of uncertainty was there since the inception of such a relationship," the HC said, adding the prosecution had not been able to prove that the accused had an "evil design" to exploit the victim.		In this case, the "promise to marry" was linked to the dissolution of marriage, the HC said. But it added a person could not decide on a divorce on his own; it had to be agreed to by their estranged spouses or decreed by court. "Therefore, an element of uncertainty was there since the inception of such a relationship," the HC said, adding the prosecution had not been able to prove that the accused had an "evil design" to exploit the victim.
		+
		+	==Consent presume if sustained over time, ‘promise of marriage’ allegation unworthy of acceptance: SC==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=09_05_2025_028_004_cap_TOI May 9, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi: Observing the increasing prevalence of live-in relationships in recent years, Supreme Court has stated that if two ableminded adults reside together as live-in partners for more than a couple of years, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of relationship, fully aware of its consequences. Therefore, allegation that such a relationship was entered into based on a promise of marriage may be deemed unworthy of acceptance.
		+
		+	While quashing criminal proceedings against a man who was accused of rape charges by his live-in partner, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra said physical relationship continued for over two years without a complaint in between and a presumption would arise of there being a valid consent for initiating and maintaining the physical relationship.
		+
		+	“A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent and have the capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own terms. This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation of such live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond,” the court said.
		+
		+	In a similar verdict, SC in March had held a woman who was in a live-in relationship for a long period may not be able to accuse her live-in partner of compelling her to get into physical relation on the false promise of marriage in order to face rape charges as it could not be be said with certainty that physical relationship was purely because of the promise.  The court had said in such cases even if it was assumed that a false promise of marriage was made to complainant initially by accused, the fact that relationship continued for such a long period would render the plea of the complainant, that her consent for all these years was under misconception of the fact that the accused would marry her, implausible.

	[[Category:India\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA		[[Category:India\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 26 December 2024
Line 571:		Line 571:

	"It is more of infatuation against opposite sex without any sincerity. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often result in timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation (sic)," the bench said on September 25.		"It is more of infatuation against opposite sex without any sincerity. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often result in timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation (sic)," the bench said on September 25.
		+
		+	==Must shield adults in live-ins even if married to others: HC, 2024==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=11_09_2024_030_007_cap_TOI Ajay Sura, Sep 11, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Chandigarh : Punjab and Haryana high court made it clear that life and liberty of adults in a live-in, even if they are married to other people, have to be protected to ward off threats arising from moral vigilantes or from close relatives.
		+
		+	However, in a related legal issue, the HC held that granting protection to minors in a live-in relationship — where only one is a minor, or both are minors — would be counter to statutory rules. According to the HC, in such cases, custody of the minor is required to be retrieved to his/her parents.
		+
		+	If the court perceives that there would be an imminent threat to the life of the minor, it should take recourse to provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The minor should be directed to stay in a children’s home or a nari niketan till he/she is an adult,” a division bench of HC, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma, said.
		+
		+	HC passed these orders while hearing a batch of petitions in which the issue was whether “court is required to grant protection to two persons living together, without examining their marital status & other circumstances.”
		+
		+	In May 2021, a single bench headed by Justice Anil Kshetarpal, had asked the larger bench to decide whether court should grant protection to two persons living together, in case they sought protection of their life and liberty, without examining their marital status.

	[[Category:India\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA		[[Category:India\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 21 December 2024
Line 426:		Line 426:

	In the present case, the apex court said that since the two lower courts had been given an opportunity to Velusamy's first wife Laxmi to be heard, the directions passed by it was erroneous hence it remanded the matter back to the matrimonial court to examine whether Laxmi was the legally wedded wife of Velusamy.		In the present case, the apex court said that since the two lower courts had been given an opportunity to Velusamy's first wife Laxmi to be heard, the directions passed by it was erroneous hence it remanded the matter back to the matrimonial court to examine whether Laxmi was the legally wedded wife of Velusamy.
		+
		+	=Live-in relationships=
		+	==Dowry laws apply: HC/ 2024==
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/court-rules-dowry-laws-apply-to-live-in-relationships/articleshow/114054576.cms Oct 8, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	''' Dowry laws apply to live-in couples too, says HC: '''
		+
		+	Allahabad high court has held that for an offence of dowry demand or a dowry death to be made out, it is sufficient to show the victim and the accused man lived as husband and wife, regardless of whether she was a legally wedded wife. HC laid down the position while upholding a Prayagraj sessions court’s rejection of a plea in April this year to discharge an accused, Adarsh Yadav, over his live-in partner’s death.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|RLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETLIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIALIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA
		+	LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: INDIA]]

	=Maintenance=		=Maintenance=

@@ Line 442: / Line 442: @@
 =Muslims=
 ==Married Muslim woman’s live-in is ‘zina,’  ‘haram’: HC==
 [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=02_03_2024_016_014_cap_TOI  Rajesh Kumar Pandey TNN, March 2, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 452: / Line 464: @@
  When her husband, Mohsin, remarried two years ago, the petitioner moved to her matrimonial home and then opted to reside with a Hindu man in a live-in relationship.
 State’s counsel opposed her plea by submitting that since she had not obtained any decree of divorce from her husband and started living with second petitioner in adultery, their relationship could not be protected by law.
 =Prevalence=