This article is written by Suprotik Chakraborty.
This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar.
Table of Contents
Abstract
A live-in relationship is a practice of a couple living together without any kind of social or legal marriage. The Supreme Court has ruled that children born out of live-in relationships are entitled to the same rights as those born to legally married couples. They are also entitled to all social rights. The Courts have always tried to broaden the provisions so that the rights of legal children can be extended to children born out of live-in relationships. They should not suffer for no fault of theirs. Today standing in the 21st century, there are still objections from society when it comes to providing such children with social and legal rights and recognition. There are social stigmas on the legitimacy of such children. For changing the life of such children, society needs to be changed by ideas and values. Society needs to stop categorizing them and help them live with dignity which every human deserves. Orthodox ideas must be transformed so that these children can be socialized properly, and we need to make sure that these children get all their required legal and social rights because these children are now considered legal and a part of our society.
Introduction
The concept of a live-in relationship is a new one and has become a topic of discussion in recent times. This practice seems to follow for the last 20 years. A couple is said to be in a live-in relationship when both of them cohabit with one another under the same roof but without any kind of social or legal marriage.
Society for long has criticized such a practice because it was considered to be immoral and unethical and as a means of running away from each other’s respective duties which would have been imposed on them if they had been tied by the legal and social bonds of marriage. Indian society had shunned away such an idea for a long time. Since, the country is based on cultural, religious, and moral sentiments, therefore, such a relationship was considered to be a direct attack on such values and cultural aspects.
Earlier the Indian Laws had also provided such judgments that would make such relationships illegal denying them the rights that were provided to legally and socially married couples. But, subsequently, the Court, though some of its latest judgments had made such relationships valid and legal and provided them with all the rights that the married couples were entitled to.
The complexity of live-in relationships arose when it came to the question of the rights of the children born out of such relationships. The question was whether such children should be provided with all the rights a legitimate child had or not. Previously, Indian society denied such children any kind of social or legal status. But, the Courts by exercising their supreme power of jurisdiction made it very clear that children born out of the relationship of parents living together for a considerable period will be given the status of legitimate children and consequently such children will be entitled to all such rights that are provided to a child born out of a legally and socially recognized marital relationship.
Subsequently the Supreme Court, through some of the leading cases, has stated that the children born out of live-in relationships will be considered to be legitimate and that they will be provided with all the rights provided under the general and special statutes about children who are born out of the socially and legally accepted marriages.
The Court has given all such decisions keeping in view the principles of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience. The learned Judges have also interpreted the provisions in a wider sense so that the children do not suffer for the wrong of their parents. The Court has taken care of the fact that these children get social recognition and are provided with all the social rights by legal rights.
The social recognition and judicial approach towards such children
Maintenance is consistently revealed as the duty to oblige another person. It shapes a huge point of view because youth is considered out of a live-in relationship. Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 21, a certifiable youngster, offspring of a predeceased kid, or the offspring of a predeceased type, so long he is a minor or/and a genuine unmarried young lady or unmarried young lady of a tyke or the unmarried young lady of a pre-died offspring of a pre-lapsed kid will be kept up as dependants by his/her father or the home of his/her terminated father. A tyke coming about because of living observing somebody had not been verified under this Section of the given Act and subsequently had been denied the benefit to be kept up under this standard.
Indian legal executive utilized its capacity to accomplish the parts of the bargains in the milestone instance of Dimple Gupta v Rajiv Gupta wherein the Supreme Court held that even an ill-conceived youngster who is resulting from an unlawful relationship is qualified for upkeep under Section 125 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) which gives support to kids whether they are real or ill-conceived while they are minors and even after such a kid has achieved greater part if he or she can’t look after himself or herself. Although there have been very a few cases that have maintained the upkeep privileges of live-in accomplices where the rules were deciphered in an exceptionally wide way to incorporate female live-in accomplices as “legitimately married spouses”, notwithstanding, on account of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v State of Gujarat made a special case where the live-in accomplice had expected the job of a subsequent wife and was not conceded any support, while the youngster conceived out of the said relationship was allowed upkeep.
The disavowal of giving upkeep to a youngster conceived out of a live-in relationship can likewise be tested under Article 32 of the Constitution of India adding up to an infringement of the essential rights which certifications under Article 21 which accommodate the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Such a refusal can deny a person of his or her entitlement to lead his or her existence with poise, and this has been maintained by the Kerala High Court in PV Susheela v Komalavally.
The inconsistent treatment of a type conceived out of a live-in relationship and a youngster resulting from a conjugal relationship even though both are seen as genuine according to the law can add up to an infringement of Article 14 which guarantees Equality under the watchful eye of Law.
So, we can see that the support of a type conceived out of a live-in relationship is an exceptionally touchy and intricate point.
Public dependent on customary qualities like in India, a live-in relationship is an idea that needs to emerge from its wardrobe and addition full acknowledgment by a bigger part of the general public. Marriage has been viewed as shaping the establishment of the general public and administering all hetero relations in the general public for a drawn-out timeframe and this casual arrangement of life in a relationship is by all accounts testing the essential precepts of marriage as a consecrated foundation.
The acknowledgment of a relationship went into by two grown-ups, without the holy observance of marriage is viewed as a no-no and has a social shame appended to it. It is significant that even Indian folklore pictures Radha and Lord Krishna to be seeing someone to that a live-in. In a world, considering material relations, this type of connection that has been exposed to the investigation is frequently named as a helpful choice professed to have resulted from Western qualities.
Anyway, this is by all accounts changing now and this can even be found in the decisions given by learned appointed authorities that perceive the idea of such connections (As found in decisions of cases like Lata Singh v State of UP which perceived life in the connection between two unmarried major of heterogeneous sex and S. Khushboo versus Kanniammal, which held that a man and lady could live respectively without being limited by marriage).
It is important to break down the reasonable and legitimate part of such associations before going into a discussion dependent on ethical quality concerning this issue. An expanding number of individuals have been eager to favour live-in-relationship over a lasting course of action called marriage and it will be off base to state that frequently these couples are not settling on educated decisions as such choices are regularly impacted by social and monetary components influencing the concerned people.
A live-in relationship is a relationship between two grown-ups of the sound psyche without going into a legitimate or formal relationship of marriage. Such a relationship is normally perceived as dwelling together which could conceivably be joined by sexual relations. In such a relationship there might be good and close-to-home commitments chosen commonly by the couple yet there are less legitimate commitments. This is particularly on account of India, which is not at all like nations like France (where life seeing someone is administered by a solidarity Pact where couples agreement to live respectively and commonly choose ensuing rights) and Canada where individuals can go into a customary law relationship which is a partner to an Indian live in and can later develop the equivalent into a marriage contract). Enlistment of live seeing someone is even mandatory in certain nations, for example, these. Anyway, this isn’t correct in the Indian setting.
To see a live-in relationship as a rising idea, it is fundamental to characterize it into different sorts
This sort of live-in relationship is portrayed by the couple having total information on the outcomes of living respectively as a team without a conjugal status or lawful acknowledgment and entering the equivalent by their unrestrained choice giving this connection a component of intentionality. This is pervasive in significant Indian metros like Mumbai, Delhi, and Bangalore where couples lean toward living respectively to expand cost productivity and utilize this time as a time for testing before marriage. As this relationship is principally founded on determining shared material advantages, it is seen in an invented way by law.
This kind of relationship is described by its automatic viewpoint and may happen if where the man or lady was persuaded that the man was unmarried, separated, or bereaved and wedded him. In any case, polygamy laws keep this second marriage from being perceived. The relationship that stayed alive subsequently becomes the idea of a live-in. A comparable circumstance happens when the marriage is phony or invalid and the couple keeps on living respectively. Such a live-in relationship is accordingly automatically gone into. It is imperative to take note of this distinction as Courts and administrators currently hope to make laws to ensure accomplices, particularly ladies trapped in conditional live-ins. Be that as it may, this frequently prompts abuse of these very laws by accomplices seeing someone of decision. The test accordingly lies in adjusting these contrary interests while outlining laws.
The lawful status of children born out of a live-in relationship
The first run-through when the Supreme Court held the authenticity of kids resulting from the live-in relationship was in S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, the Supreme Court had stated, “If a man and lady are living under a similar rooftop and living together for certain years, there will be an assumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as a couple and the youngsters destined to them won’t be illegitimate.” Further, the court deciphered the status and enactment to a degree that it demonstrates congruity from Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India which sets out the commitment of the State to give the kids sufficient chance so they create inappropriate ways and further shield their advantage.
Managing the ongoing case on the authenticity of offspring of such connections, Supreme Court in Tulsa v. Durghatiya has held that a youngster conceived out of such a relationship will never again be considered as an ill-conceived tyke. The significant precondition for the equivalent ought to be that the guardians probably lived under one rooftop and lived together for a fundamentally lengthy timespan for the general public to remember them as a couple and it ought not to be a “stroll in and exit” relationship.
We have seen that Indian legal executives without explicit enactment have been ensuring the privileges of the youngsters by giving the law a more extensive elucidation so no kid is “debased” for having no issue of his or her own.
On 31-3-2011 a Special Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising of G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun commented that regardless of the connection between guardians, the birth of a youngster out of such a relationship must be seen freely of the relationship of the guardians. It is as plain and clear as daylight that a youngster conceived out of such a relationship is guiltless and is qualified for every one of the rights and benefits accessible to kids resulting from legitimate relationships. This is the essence of Section 16(3) of the altered Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Regarding the authenticity and legacy privileges of these children, it can be stated that the legacy privileges of kids are referenced in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, where the lawful status of authenticity is given even to ill-conceived kids (those resulting from marriage) for the sole reason for legacy. Accordingly, legacy rights have been allowed to kids resulting from a live-in relationship. These rights are accessible in both familial and self-purchased properties.
Property rights
Property rights refer to the inheritance rights of the children. The children born out of a legitimate marital relationship are entitled to inherit ancestral property under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the problem arises when it comes to providing property rights and especially ancestral property inheritance rights to children who are born out of live-in relationships. In a live-in relationship, the partners live with each other for a long period without getting married to each other either legally or socially. Now, according to recent judgments children born out of the live-in relationship are given ancestral property rights. However, children born out of one-night stands or walk-in-and-walk relationships are not given any ancestral property rights.
Legitimacy has always formed a condition for the inheritance rights provided under Hindu law. Consequently, the Courts have always ensured that any child who is born from a live-in relationship of a reasonable period should not be denied the right to inheritance and this practice is in sync with Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court had given a landmark judgment in the case of Vidyadhari v Sukhrana Bai where the Court granted the right of inheritance to the children born out of a live-in relationship and ascribed them with the status of “legal heirs”.
In many cases, the question raised was whether children born out of void and voidable relationships should be granted the status of legitimate children and whether they will be entitled to the inheritance rights provided under the laws. Since there was no attempt to marry on the part of the partners, therefore many people objected to the idea of providing the children born out of live-in relationships with ancestral property rights. In such situations, the Court has interpreted the statutes in a broader sense so that the children born out of such illegal unions do not suffer economically and socially because of some wrong of their parents. In the case of Bharat Matha, the Court denied providing the ancestral property inheritance rights to children born out of live-in relationships but said that these children are entitled to get self-acquired property. However, later Justice Ganguly highly criticized such judgment in the Supreme Court and deliberated on the issue of live-in relationships and the property rights of a child born out of such a relationship. He stated that the legislature has used the word “property” in Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and is silent on whether such property is meant to be an ancestral or a self-acquired property and in light of such uncertainty, the concerned child’s right to property cannot be arbitrarily denied.
The intention of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 concerning Section 16 and all the subsequent amendments is to eliminate the distinction between the children born out of valid marriages and live-in relationships to bring about reforms and changes in society. Therefore, the law has found it more meaningful to provide children born out of live-in relationships to grant property rights, both ancestral and self-acquired property rights. This has been done keeping in mind the principles of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience. Therefore, today the property rights of children born out of live-in relationships are widely recognized and accepted throughout India.
Conclusion
Indian society is diverse and is characterized by people who have conflicting ideas and viewpoints. They have contrary opinions on a particular matter. Therefore, when such an issue regarding the legitimacy of children born out of live-in relationships is at hand, then a wave of contradictions knocks on the door of our society.
Today, however, Indian Society consists of two categories of people. The first category consists of people who have orthodox and rigid ideas about a concept to the extent that they do not accept the children born out of live-in relationships as legitimate ones and also deny them social status and recognition. The second category consists of people who are modern-minded and whose arena of thinking is broad enough to consider such children as part of this society and they consider such children as legitimate and that they should not be criticized or sidelined because of the irresponsibility of their parents.
This view of the second category of people was also held by the Indian Judiciary. The decisions of the various cases show the increasing complexity of this problem. However, the Indian Judiciary keeping in mind the Principles of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience held that such children will be given adequate social and legal recognition and will be entitled to all the rights that are provided to children born out of a legal and socially recognized marital relationship. Therefore, the Courts have provided them with all the rights and benefits that the other children can claim. The parents must fulfill all their needs and get them properly educated and socialized. They are supposed to be brought up in a normal social environment. These children are also entitled to all the properties of their parents whether ancestral or self-acquired. They are also entitled to all social rights.
The Courts have always tried to broaden the provisions so that the rights of legal children can be extended to children born out of live-in relationships. They should not suffer because of the wrong of their parents.
Today standing in the 21st century, there are still objections from society when it comes to providing such children with social and legal rights and recognition. There are social stigmas on the legitimacy of such children.
For changing the life of such children, society needs to be changed by ideas and values. The orthodox ideas have to be transformed so that these children can be socialized properly and we need to make sure that these children get all their required legal and social rights because these children are now considered legal and a part of our society.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
