4 min readApr 2, 2026 06:04 AM IST First published on: Apr 2, 2026 at 06:04 AM ISTLive-in relationships are once again in the public discourse, with the question of morality hanging over them yet again. This time, the debate has resurfaced because a single bench of the Allahabad High Court denied legality to a live-in relationship involving a married person and a third party without first seeking divorce. A few days later, however, a division bench of the same court allowed a live-in relationship between a married man and an adult woman, observing that morality and law are distinct.The concept of live-in relationships in India was recognised in Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma (2013), primarily to ensure protection for women from domestic violence in relationships outside marriage — an implied international obligation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The courts have had to balance two competing considerations: The wrong caused to the legally wedded spouse and children, and the need to protect women and children in live-in relationships.AdvertisementJudicial interpretation has often viewed live-in relationships as more fragile than marriage, since they may end whenever the partners so decide, leaving the already vulnerable woman and children, if any, without remedy. Accordingly, the exhaustive definition of “domestic relationship” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 categorised live-in relationships under the head of a “relationship in the nature of marriage”. The intent was to extend certain protections associated with marriage to women in such relationships. Live-in relationships, therefore, have largely been interpreted as a safety net against exploitation at the hands of a partner rather than as a licence to undermine the institution of marriage.Following the decriminalisation of adultery in Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018), live-in relationships are no longer restricted to unmarried persons. They may also exist between heterosexual partners where one is married, or where both are married to different persons. The task before the courts in such cases is to determine if the relationship qualifies as one “in the nature of marriage”, since not all live-in relationships meet that threshold for legal protection. This is that grey area where the courts may take liberal or conservative approaches.The two benches of the Allahabad HC have delivered diametrically opposite rulings on petitions filed by live-in couples seeking protection from families opposing their relationship. The denial of legitimacy in one case stems from the reasoning that a married person’s statutory right to protect the consortium of marriage by enforcing cohabitation — under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — cannot be overridden by another person’s liberty to enter into a relationship outside marriage. Protection, according to this reasoning, can only be extended after divorce proceedings conclude. The court has further equated a live-in relationship with marriage and invoked statutory provisions meant to penalise marriage by an already married person, such as bigamy.AdvertisementProtecting the “social institution” of marriage is often cited as an important task of the judiciary — and rightly so, for it is the security and well-being of those within the marriage that sustains trust in the institution. Yet, it must also be recognised that the legal recognition of live-in relationships emerged from a different concern: The need to protect the vulnerable partner, most often the woman, from exploitation and violence. The issue is not merely one of morality but also of survival, given the dangers of honour killing. The court’s insistence that a married person must first obtain a divorce before entering into a live-in relationship opens the door to vulnerability. Such paternalism must be refrained from, especially when the SC has not criminalised such relationships.The writer is a writer pursuing LLM at National Law University, Delhi