Live in relationship

Live in relationship in India and abroad

 

India is known for its democracy and family system. Generally people are very much attached to their families and the top most priority of every ideal Indian is his family. The main reason is the kind of faith and respect people have on marriage. The social institution of marriage is the biggest strength of this diversified country. Irrespective of faith, people regard marriage as an integral part of their lives and believe that moral values and traditions are to be followed and preserved for a healthy society. In earlier days, marriages were fixed by parents and elders of the joint family. The modern Indian families are nuclear as most of the people migrate to urban areas for education and livelihood. There is no doubt that the present generation is highly talented and plays a vital role in the development of the country. Though the advent of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization has significantly enhanced the economic position of the Indians but has equally weakened the social system of marriage and family in India. The influence has gone to such an extent that people now are getting married late due to higher expectations in relationships and the saddest part is that youngsters these days are not interested in marriage and are gradually shifting towards live-in-relationships. 

Live-in relationship defined as

It is “an arrangement of living in which the couples are unmarried live together to conduct a long-going relationship similarly as in marriage". In this relationship an unmarried couple lives together under the same roof in a way it resembles a marriage, but without getting married legally. This form of relationship does not thrust the typical responsibilities of a married life on the individuals living together. The foundation of live in relationship is individual freedom.

Some characteristics of live-in-relationship are:

1. These marriages are not solemnized.

2. Cohabitation alone does not constitute such marriage.

3. The couple must hold themselves out to the world as spouse for a significant period of time.

4. There must be mutual consent of the parties to the relationship constituting a deemed marriage

5. Both parties must be of legal age to enter into a marriage.

6. Both parties must be otherwise qualified to enter into a marriage

 

Prevalence rate of live-in-relationship in India and other countries

Census in India

In metropolitan and cosmopolitan cities of India has become fashion to live-together without being married. Since rural people are still conservative, it is not practiced. Recently Indian court has given some rights to those couples who have been living together for longer time. Under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the court has ascribed economic rights to live-in female partners

 Approval of non-traditional marriage rises with education level One recent phenomenon in India -- couples living together without getting married -- meets with staunch disapproval regardless of education level. Overall, 1 in 20 (5%) Indians approve, including just 10% of college graduates.

Over 12 million unmarried partners live together in 6,008,007 households. – U.S. Census Bureau. “American Community Survey: 2005-2007.”

The number of cohabiting unmarried partners increased tenfold between 1960 and 2000. – U.S. Census Bureau. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2000.”

The number of cohabiting unmarried partners increased by 88% between 1990 and 2007. – U.S. Census Bureau. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2007.”

The majority of couples marrying today cohabited first. – Bumpass, Larry and Lu, Hsien-Hen. 2000. “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts in the United States.” Population Studies, 54: 29-41.

About 75% of cohabiters plan to marry their partners. – Smock, Pamela. 2000. “Cohabitation in the United States.” Annual Review of Sociology.

55% of different-sex cohabiters do marry within five years of moving in together. 40% break up within that same time period. About 10% remain in an unmarried relationship for five years or more. – Smock, Pamela. 2000. “Cohabitation in the United States.” Annual Review of Sociology.

41% of American women aged 15-44 have cohabited at some point. – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. “Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States.” Vital Health and Statistics, 23; 22.

In 1995, 24% of women aged 25-34 were cohabiting, compared to 22% of women aged 35-39, and 15% of women aged 40-44. In every age group, the percentages have increased since 1987. – Bumpass, Larry and Lu, Hsien-Hen. 2000. “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts in the United States.” Population Studies, 54: 29-41.

10.7% of the unmarried population report living together with unmarried partners. – U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey: 2005-2007.

12.8% of unmarried-partner households report being same-sex – U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey: 2005-2007.

Census

In 2002 the CDC(center for disease control) found that for married couples the percentage of the relationship ending after 5 years is 20%, for unmarried cohabitators the percentage is 49%. After 10 years the percentage for the relationship to end is 33% for married couples and 62% for unmarried cohabitators.

An analysis of data from the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth data from 1988, 1995, and 2002 suggests that the positive relationship between premarital cohabitation and marital instability has weakened for more recent birth and marriage cohorts, as the total number of couples cohabitating before marriage has increased.

Later CDC work found that between 2002 and 2006-2010, the number of couples in opposite-sex cohabiting relationships increased from 9.0% to 11.2% for women, and from 9.2% to 12.2% for men. Drawing on the 2006-2008 data, Princeton university researchers examined whether and to what extent variation in premarital cohabitation experiences influence marital stability. They found that the relationship between cohabitation and marital instability is complex and depends in part on marriage cohort, race/ethnicity, and marriage plans. Their analyses reveal that a 'cohabitation effect' exists only for women married prior to 1996, and that, until marriage plans are considered, there is no cohabitation effect among women married since 1996.

Recent research from 2011 by the Pew Research Center has found that the number of couples that cohabit before marriage has increased. 44% of adults (and more than half of 30- to 49-year-olds) say they have cohabited at some point. Nearly two-thirds of adults who ever cohabited (64%) say they thought about it as a step toward marriage. The report also notes a trend toward rising public acceptance of cohabiting couples over the years. Most Americans now say the rise in unmarried couples living together either makes no difference to society (46%) or is good for society (9%).

Historical Background:

The concept of live-in-relationship is not new in India. In ancient time it was known as "maitri - karar" (friendship agreement) in which a written agreement was made between the people of two opposite sex that they would live together as friends and look after each other. The term live-in-relationship is defined neither in dictionary nor in law. Live-in-relationship means a woman living with a man as husband and wife for a reasonable period, without marrying him. In the words of an American Anthropologist "living together at least five days a week for at least three months, not legally or religiously married, yet sexually intimate, with or without the goal of marriage in the future." These relationships are called and stigmatized as socially ambiguous and sexually exploitative relationships.

 

Views of famous people about live in relationship

Famous film maker, Shyam Benegal “It a very good step as it will not only protect the rights of women who enter into a live-in relationship but will also be helpful to the children from such relations in getting their rights in future.

                         

Marriage Counsellor Mangala Samant, “Nearly 20 per cent of IT professionals prefer to have a live-in relationship before getting married. Prolonged working, stressful lives and an inactive social life are some of the reasons for this trend.”

Famous Social Activist Shobhaa De has commented that the dynamics of marriages have changed mainly because women are now financially independent and therefore in a position to question the old chauvinist order created mainly by men. Thus Women who have now certain amount of buying power and dispensing power too, find some space to decide which type of relationship they wish to choose. They feel that they can also choose partnerships as per their convenience.

Social Geographer Soma Das says that people who opt for live-in relationships do so because they do not believe in marriage.

On 15th December, 2008 in the question hour, Mr.H.R.Bhardwaj , Hon’ble Union Law Minister while answering to the question related to live-in-relationships said that if live-in- relationships are acceptable by society, then the government can make laws. Laws are made keeping in view societal trends. It is hypothetical to ask a question whether we are contemplating a law to govern live-in relationships. Less than one percent of the people are in such relationships. If a law is enacted, it will only be misused.

 

 

Reasons  to go for  Live-in Relationship:

Whenever one thinks about live-in relationship the first question which comes in mind is, why couples believe in having such a relationship instead of legally, religiously and socially sanctioned marriage? There may be many answers to it such as-

1. It is the part of young men and women who are away from home especially abroad without any family or local guardians for studies or work. The country's open culture forced them to adopt this relationship for emotional support and to mitigate the finances. In India this trend is prevalent mostly in cosmopolitan cities in circles where people work in advertising, hotel, airlines or people in the art industry - music, theatre etc.

2. Some times couples move in together mainly because they are in love and they want to spend more time together. But they know that their partners are not a good match for a long-term relationship. Others want to make sure that they are compatible before a lifetime commitment.

                                              

3. Some couples who are engaged and soon to be married also decide to move in together before the wedding to save the money for a wedding and do not want to pay two rents.

4. However, some couples also might live-in together if they decide not to get married or they figure out that in due course they cannot marry each other because of some legal hurdles.

5. If an analysis is made of need of such relationships, avoiding responsibility would emerge as the prime reason. The lack of commitment, the disrespect of social bonds and the lack of tolerance in relationships have given rise to alternative to marriage.

6. For sake of independencies and privacy included in such a relationship, someone would think it to be an ideal move.

7. Some couples who live together like gay and lesbian couples are prevented from marrying.

Laws in INDIA

No specific law recognizes a live in relationships in India. No legislation is there to define the rights and obligations of the parties and the status of children born to such couples. A live–in relationship is not recognized by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or any other statute. In the absence of any law to define the status of live in relationships the Courts have taken the view that where a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for a long term, the law will presume that they were legally married unless proved contrary. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 provides for the protection, maintenance and right of palimony to a live-in partner, if she complains.

Right to Maintenance in Live-in Relationship

The need  to include live in female partners for the right of maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was supported by the judgment in Abhijit Bhikaseth  Auti v. State Of Maharashtra and Others. The Malimath Committee and the Law Commission of India also suggested that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for considerably long time, she ought to enjoy the legal status as given to wife. However, recently it was observed that a divorced wife is treated as a wife in the context of Section 125 of CrPC but the live in partners cannot get divorced, and hence cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 considers females who are not formally married, but are living with a male person in a relationship, which is in the nature of marriage, also akin to wife, though not equivalent to wife. Section 2(f) of the Act defines domestic relationship which means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Thus, the definition of domestic relationship includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship `in the nature of marriage.

In the case of Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the nomenclature “dowry” has no magical charm. It refers to a demand of money in relation to a marital relationship. The Court rejected the contention of the defendant that since he was not married to the complainant, Section 498A did not apply to him in a step ahead in protecting the woman from harassment for dowry in a live in relationship.

Recent Supreme Court  Judgment

The Supreme Court on 29^th Novemeber 2013 said: “Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country. Long-standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times, deserves protection because that woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that DV Act does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is restrictive and Exhaustive.” The court as well asked Parliament to bring in proper amendments to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, or enact a suitable legislation so that women and children born out of live-in relationships are protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage. 

Rights Of Children Born Out Of Live In Relationship:
The law relating to the right of child born out of live in relationship is still groping in the dark. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives the status of legitimacy to every child, irrespective of birth out of void or voidable marriage. But live in relationships do not come under the concept of marriage. So status of child born out of such relationship is still doubtful as such relations do not consider as a marriage under Hindu Marriage Act. Moreover, no other religion or law provide for the legality of child born out of such relationship.

Another important matter that needs to be taken note is that, if the live in partners desire to get out of the relationship, then the future of the child comes into question as there is no provision in law which can secure the rights of such child. But recently SC in the case of Bharata Matha & Ors v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. held that child born out of live in relationship may be allowed to succeed inheritance in the property of parents but doesn’t have claim against Hindu ancestral property. But in spite of above decision there is an utmost need of provision in law which deals with the status and protection of right of child born out of such relationship.

Supreme Court's Conditions

The Supreme court in the  D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal case made it clear that if the man has a live-in arrangement with a woman only for sexual reasons, neither partner can claim benefits of a legal marriage. In order to be eligible for palimony, a relationship must comply with certain conditions.

The conditions laid down are that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses;

ü  they must be of legal age to marry

ü  they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried;

ü  they must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time.

Considering that the judgment would exclude many women in live-in relationships from the benefit of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the apex court said it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law. The parliament has used the expression relationship in the nature of marriage and not ˜live-in relationship”. The court cannot change the language of the statute.

Laws in Other Countries

Ø  Live in relationships in various countries are either recognized as it exists or it’s finding recognition via implied provisions of different statutes that protect property rights, housing rights. Many countries provide for live in relationship contracts in which partners can determine their legal rights. However, when it comes to the right of child born under such relationship, law of various countries exudes a uniform tenor of protecting their rights.

Ø  In France, there is the provision of “Civil Solidarity Pacts” known as “pacte civil de solidarite” or PaCS, passed by the French National Assembly in October 1999 that allows couples to enter into a union by signing before a court clerk. The contract binds “two adults of different sexes or of the same sex, in order to organise their common life” and allows them to enjoy the rights accorded to married couples in the areas of income tax, housing and social welfare. The contract can be revoked unilaterally or bilaterally after giving the partner, three month’s notice in writing.

Ø  In Philippines, live in relationship couple’s right to each other’s property is governed by co- ownership rule. Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

Ø  In the UK, live in couples does not enjoy legal sanction and status as granted to married couple. There is no obligation on the partners to maintain each other. Partners do not have inheritance right over each other’s property unless named in their partner’s will. As per a 2010 note from the Home Affairs Section to the House of Commons, unmarried couples have no guaranteed rights to ownership of each other’s property on breakdown of relationship. However, the law seek to protect the right of child born under such relationship. Both parents have the onus of bringing up their children irrespective of the fact that whether they are married or cohabiting.

Ø  The live in relation were conferred legal sanctity in Scotland in the year 2006 by Family Law (Scotland) Act. Section 25 (2) of the Act postulates that a court of law can consider a person as a co-habitant of another by checking on three factors; the length of the period during which they lived together, the nature of the relationship during that period and the nature and extent of any financial arrangements, in case of breakdown of such relationship, Section 28 of the Act gives a cohabitant the right to apply in court for financial support. This is in case of separation and not death of either partner. If a partner dies intestate, the survivor can move the court for financial support from his estate within 6 months.

Ø  Laws in the U.S. as well do not provide the live in relationship couple with the rights as enjoyed by married couple. Nonetheless, couple can enter into Cohabitation Agreement containing stipulation with regards to their rights and liabilities.

Ø  Canada recognises live in relationship as “Common Law Marriage”. The couple is accorded legal sanction if the couple has been living in conjugal relationship for a year or the couple is parents of a child born by birth or adoption.

Ø  In China, couple can sign a contract for live in relationship. The rights of the child are secured as the child born outside the wedlock has the same benefits as enjoyed by the child born under a marriage.

Ø  The laws of Ireland and Australia also recognises live in relationship. The family law of Australia recognises “de facto relationship” between couples, while in Ireland the impetus is towards greater recognition to live in relationship as there has been demand for right to maintenance by separated live in couples.

Ø  The position that emerges with respect to live in relationships is not very discernible and lacks a definition in majority of the countries. While some countries have passed legislation according legal status to live in couples, some countries are granting greater legality to such couples by the implied provision of their statutes as discussed. In India as well, via various decisions of the court, law is exhibiting a tendency of giving legal tinge to live in relationships.