What do you understand by institutionalization of ‘live-in relationship’? (2014)
A live-in relationship is the cohabitation of an unmarried couple in a sexual and domestic partnership, without the rites or registration of marriage. Institutionalisation is the process by which a practice becomes a stable, patterned, normatively regulated and legitimate part of social structure. So the institutionalisation of live-in relationships means cohabitation moving from deviance, to tolerated practice, to a recognised social and legal status with defined rights and duties.
The concept
Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (The Social Construction of Reality, 1966) explain institutionalisation in three stages:
- Habitualisation: repeated conduct becomes routine, such as couples cohabiting in cities.
- Typification: others recognise it as a type, “a live-in couple”.
- Legitimation: norms, law and knowledge justify it, and it becomes part of objective social reality.
Talcott Parsons saw institutionalisation as shared normative expectations being built into roles: partners, kin, landlords, employers and the state know what rights and obligations follow.
Western trajectory
- In Sweden, cohabitation was common but seen as deviant until the mid-1960s. Sociologist Jan Trost later described it as fully institutionalised, with statutory rules on shared homes. France’s PACS (1999) gave civil partnerships a legal form.
- In the EU, 41.1% of births in 2023 were outside marriage, and cohabitation is now a normal stage of the life course. Andrew Cherlin (2004) sees this as part of the deinstitutionalisation of marriage: as marriage loses its monopoly, cohabitation gains institutional status.
The Indian process
In India, the law is institutionalising the practice before society fully accepts it.
- Legal recognition: Badri Prasad (1978) presumed marriage from long cohabitation. The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects a “relationship in the nature of marriage”. S. Khushboo (2010) held that live-in is not an offence. D. Velusamy (2010) laid down criteria (legal age, unmarried, significant cohabitation, holding out as spouses), and Indra Sarma (2013) urged Parliament to legislate.
- Rights for dependants: children born of long cohabitation can inherit (Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan, 2022).
- Formal registration: Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code (in force from 27 January 2025) makes registration within a month compulsory, with penalties. The Rajasthan High Court (2025) directed a registration portal and agreements covering the woman’s maintenance and children’s care.
- Social legitimation is lagging: the CSDS youth survey (2016) found 67% disapproval. Only one live-in relationship was registered in Uttarakhand’s first ten days under the UCC, which shows couples avoid being made visible to kin and the state.
Sociological significance and critique
- It marks the move from a single prescribed family form to plural forms (Judith Stacey, Brave New Families, 1990).
- Paradox: many choose live-in to escape institutional control. Institutionalising it re-imposes marriage-like duties and surveillance, a move from free union to regulated union.
- Feminist view: recognition protects economically dependent women. Mandatory registration, however, can expose inter-caste and inter-faith couples to family and community violence.
Conclusion
The institutionalisation of live-in relationships is a partial and uneven process in India. Legally it is well advanced, normatively it is contested, and it is concentrated among urban, educated groups. It shows how law can lead social change, turning a private arrangement into a recognised, regulated institution alongside marriage.