A live-in relationship is a domestic arrangement in which two persons cohabit without a formal marriage, which Indian law recognises as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under certain conditions for the purpose of granting legal protections. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(f) extends the definition of "domestic relationship" to include such relationships, and the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) laid down specific conditions that must be met for a live-in relationship to qualify for legal protection.
Legal definition
No Indian statute specifically defines or regulates live-in relationships. The legal framework has been developed judicially through interpretation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
Section 2(f) DV Act: "domestic relationship" 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.
The phrase "relationship in the nature of marriage" is the legal anchor for live-in relationships. The Supreme Court has interpreted this phrase to mean a relationship that resembles marriage in its essential characteristics but falls short of a legal marriage.
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) creates a presumption that a man and woman living together as husband and wife are legally married, unless proved otherwise.
How courts have interpreted this term
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755]
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to determine when a live-in relationship qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the DV Act. The Court identified the following conditions: (1) the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses; (2) they must be of legal age to marry; (3) they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage (including being unmarried); (4) they must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time; and (5) they must have lived together in a shared household. The Court held that a woman who knowingly enters into a relationship with a married man is not in a "relationship in the nature of marriage."
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal [(2010) 10 SCC 469]
The Supreme Court established that not every live-in relationship amounts to a "relationship in the nature of marriage." The Court held that merely keeping a woman as a concubine, for sexual purposes, or as a domestic servant does not constitute such a relationship. The relationship must bear the essential hallmarks of marriage — mutual commitment, social acknowledgment as a couple, cohabitation in a shared household, and financial interdependence.
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal [(2010) 5 SCC 600]
The Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship between consenting adults is neither a crime nor a sin, and that adults have the right to live together without being married. The Court quashed criminal complaints filed against a public figure for advocating pre-marital relationships, holding that such expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a).
Why this matters
Live-in relationships occupy a legally ambiguous space in India. There is no specific legislation governing them — their recognition comes entirely through judicial interpretation of existing statutes, primarily the DV Act. This means that the rights available to persons in live-in relationships are narrower and less certain than those available to married couples.
The most significant practical protection is under the DV Act. A woman in a "relationship in the nature of marriage" can seek all reliefs under the Act — protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, and custody orders. However, this protection is available only if the relationship meets the conditions laid down in Indra Sarma and Velusamy. A woman who knowingly enters a relationship with a married man is excluded from this protection.
For children born from live-in relationships, the law provides greater clarity. Under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act (which applies to void and voidable marriages) and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act (presumption of marriage from prolonged cohabitation), children of live-in couples are generally treated as legitimate for purposes of inheritance and maintenance. The Supreme Court has consistently held that children should not suffer for the choices of their parents.
Maintenance rights for live-in partners remain contested. While the DV Act provides for monetary relief, the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC remains limited to a "wife" — and a woman in a live-in relationship is not automatically a "wife" unless the relationship meets the statutory and judicial criteria. Each case is determined on its facts.
Related terms
Related statutory framework:
Related concepts:
Analogous relationships:
Frequently asked questions
Is a live-in relationship legal in India?
Yes. The Supreme Court in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) held that a live-in relationship between consenting adults is not a criminal offence. However, it does not have the same legal status as marriage — specific legal protections apply only when the relationship qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the DV Act.
Can a woman in a live-in relationship claim maintenance?
Under the DV Act, a woman in a qualifying live-in relationship can claim monetary relief from the male partner. However, the right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is generally available only to a "wife," and a live-in partner is not automatically classified as a wife. The relationship must meet the conditions laid down in Indra Sarma (2013) and D. Velusamy (2010).
Are children born from a live-in relationship legitimate?
Courts have generally treated children born from long-term live-in relationships as legitimate. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 119 BSA) creates a presumption of marriage from prolonged cohabitation, which in turn confers legitimacy on children. The Supreme Court has consistently held that children should not be penalised for their parents' marital status.
Can a woman knowingly in a relationship with a married man claim DV Act protection?
No. The Supreme Court in Indra Sarma (2013) held that a woman who knowingly enters into a relationship with a married man is not in a "relationship in the nature of marriage" and cannot claim protection under the DV Act. However, if the woman was unaware of the man's marital status, the position may be different.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.