In the light of judicial intervention on ‘Live-in relationships’, discuss the future of marriage and family in India. (2019)
A live-in relationship is cohabitation by an unmarried couple without the rites or registration of marriage. Indian society has long seen it as deviant. Parliament has not legislated on it, so the courts have defined its legal status step by step. That judicial record is a good guide to where marriage and family in India are heading.
How the courts have intervened
| Phase | Judgment | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Presumption | Badri Prasad (1978); Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan (2022) | Long cohabitation raises a presumption of marriage; children can inherit |
| Liberty | Lata Singh (2006); S. Khushboo (2010); Nandakumar (2018) | Adults may live together; it is not a crime, even if the man is below marriageable age |
| Protection | D. Velusamy (2010); Indra Sarma (2013) | A “relationship in the nature of marriage” gets maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if the couple are of age, unmarried, cohabiting for a significant period and holding themselves out as spouses |
| Limits | Indra Sarma; Kerala High Court (2023) | Liaisons with a married partner are excluded; a live-in is not marriage, so there is no divorce |
| Regulation | Rajasthan High Court (January 2025); Uttarakhand UCC (from 27 January 2025) | Registration is urged or made mandatory, with penalties for non-registration |
The courts are constitutionalising intimate choice under Article 21, while assimilating live-ins to a marriage-like model and protecting women and children.
What this means for the future of marriage
- Marriage will survive but lose its monopoly. Legitimacy increasingly depends on the quality of the relationship rather than its rites, which is what Andrew Cherlin (2004) calls the deinstitutionalisation of marriage. Anthony Giddens’s “pure relationship”, lasting only while it satisfies both partners, now has legal protection.
- Live-ins as a trial or alternative stage for urban, educated, mobile youth. The never-married share of those aged 15–29 rose from 17.2% (2011) to 23% (2019).
- Judicial conservatism sets limits. The courts protect live-ins because they resemble marriage, and registration under the UCC makes them visible to parents and the state. The result is regulated cohabitation, not free union.
What it means for the family
- Plural family forms. Children of void marriages can inherit their parents’ share (Revanasiddappa, 2023), children of long cohabitation benefit from the presumption of marriage, and Deepika Singh (2022) recognised “atypical families”. The family is being defined by function, not by marriage, echoing David Morgan’s idea of “family practices”.
- Persistence of kin control. The CSDS youth survey (2016) found 67% of young Indians disapproved of live-in relationships. Arranged, caste-endogamous marriage remains the norm. As I. P. Desai showed in Mahuva, Indian families can be structurally modern but functionally joint. Parents stay deeply involved, whatever the form of union.
- Gender risks. Without the full protections of marriage, women’s claims to maintenance, property and custody depend on the courts, which is a feminist concern.
Conclusion
Judicial intervention points to a pluralised rather than a post-marital future. Marriage remains the dominant and most legitimate union, while the family widens to include cohabiting, single-parent and chosen forms. Change will be slow, class-bound and urban-led. The law is moving faster than social acceptance, and a plural family system will emerge from that gap.