01 Read
What happened
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that two consenting adults have a fundamental right under Article 21 to cohabit without interference from family members or third parties. The court, drawing on a line of Supreme Court precedents including Lata Singh and S. Khushboo, directed police protection to a live-in couple facing family opposition. It held that personal liberty encompasses the right to choose one's partner and living arrangement, regardless of marital status, caste, or religion.
02 Understand
Why it matters
The Delhi HC ruling sits at the intersection of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and the judicially evolved right to privacy affirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Live-in relationships in India are not governed by any single statute but have been progressively legitimised through judicial pronouncements.
The foundational chain runs as follows. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), the Supreme Court held that a major woman has the right to marry or live with anyone she chooses. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Court held that live-in relationships, though socially disapproved, are not illegal. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Court attempted to define what qualifies as a 'domestic relationship' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), and brought live-in partners within its protection if the relationship is 'in the nature of marriage.' The Puttaswamy ruling added a decisive constitutional layer — autonomy over intimate decisions is a core dimension of privacy under Article 21.
The LIMITATION the courts recognise is that live-in couples cannot claim all spousal rights; maintenance and inheritance protections attach only under specific statutory conditions. Children born of live-in relationships are legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but property rights of such children are restricted to the parents' self-acquired property.
The TEST applied is whether the relationship involves two consenting adults, is not prohibited by law (e.g., neither party can be married to another living spouse without divorce), and whether state or family interference disproportionately curtails personal liberty without a legitimate state interest.
The foundational chain runs as follows. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), the Supreme Court held that a major woman has the right to marry or live with anyone she chooses. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Court held that live-in relationships, though socially disapproved, are not illegal. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Court attempted to define what qualifies as a 'domestic relationship' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), and brought live-in partners within its protection if the relationship is 'in the nature of marriage.' The Puttaswamy ruling added a decisive constitutional layer — autonomy over intimate decisions is a core dimension of privacy under Article 21.
The LIMITATION the courts recognise is that live-in couples cannot claim all spousal rights; maintenance and inheritance protections attach only under specific statutory conditions. Children born of live-in relationships are legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but property rights of such children are restricted to the parents' self-acquired property.
The TEST applied is whether the relationship involves two consenting adults, is not prohibited by law (e.g., neither party can be married to another living spouse without divorce), and whether state or family interference disproportionately curtails personal liberty without a legitimate state interest.
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for CLAT PG are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial