This is a question I receive more often than people might expect, usually in hushed tones, as though asking it were itself somehow improper. Let me be direct: there is no law in India that prohibits two consenting adults from living together. The Supreme Court has said so repeatedly, most clearly in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), where it held that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults does not constitute an offence of any description. This article is not about endorsing or discouraging any particular lifestyle — it is about stating plainly what the law is and what protections it affords.
The January 2025 Delhi High Court Ruling
In January 2025, the Delhi High Court reiterated what has been settled law for some years: two adults of legal age who choose to live together are entitled to police protection from interference by family members or others who disapprove of their choice. The police cannot decline to act on a complaint by a couple facing threats or harassment simply because the relationship is not a marriage. Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty — encompasses the right to choose a partner and a manner of living, and the State's obligation to protect that right is not conditional on the relationship being formalised.
In practice, couples in Delhi who face threats from family members can file a complaint at the local police station. If the police are unresponsive, an application before the appropriate magistrate seeking protection is available. I have filed such applications, and courts are consistent in directing police to act.
Is There a Specific Law Governing Live-in Relationships?
No dedicated statute governs live-in relationships in India. The legal framework has been constructed entirely through judicial interpretation. The foundational judgments are Velusamy v. Patchaiammal (2010), in which the Supreme Court held that a relationship "in the nature of marriage" attracts the protections of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, and Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013), which elaborated on what factors a court will examine to determine whether a live-in relationship qualifies as being "in the nature of marriage."
These factors include the duration of the relationship, whether the parties held themselves out to society as akin to spouses, whether they shared a common household, sexual relationship, financial arrangements, and domestic arrangements such as care of children. A long-term, stable cohabitation that resembles a marriage in its practical dimensions will attract the DV Act's protections. A casual or fleeting relationship will not.
Maintenance Rights for Women
This is the area where the law provides the most significant protection. A woman who has been in a live-in relationship that qualifies as being "in the nature of marriage" under the DV Act can seek maintenance under Section 20 of that Act. She can also seek a residence order to remain in the shared household and a protection order against violence or harassment.
The maintenance claim under the DV Act is distinct from Section 144 BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC), which courts have interpreted more restrictively to require a legally valid marriage for the wife to claim maintenance. The DV Act route is the more effective mechanism for women in live-in relationships. Courts assess maintenance based on the man's income, standard of living during the relationship, and the woman's independent means.
Status of Children
Children born to parents in a live-in relationship are fully legitimate under Indian law. The Supreme Court settled this in Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008), holding that a child born of a live-in relationship of considerable duration is presumed legitimate. Such children have full inheritance rights from both parents, including rights in ancestral property. I have seen cases where family members attempt to deny children these rights on the basis of the parents' relationship status — such attempts do not succeed in court.
Property Rights Between Partners
This is where the law is less protective. Unlike married couples, partners in a live-in relationship do not acquire automatic property rights over each other's assets during the relationship or upon its termination. There is no provision in Indian law equivalent to matrimonial property rights for live-in couples.
If a woman has contributed financially to the acquisition of a property that stands in her partner's name, she may have a claim in equity, but this requires evidence of contribution and the legal route is through a civil suit — not a family court application. Cohabitation agreements, while rarely used in India, are legally enforceable contracts and can govern property rights, financial arrangements, and what happens upon separation. For couples with significant shared assets, such an agreement is worth serious consideration.
Practical Steps When Facing Pressure or Threats
If family members are threatening violence or creating pressure, document everything — save messages, note dates and details of threats, gather witness contact information. File a complaint at the police station and insist that it is registered. If the police are reluctant, approach the magistrate directly. A protection application under the DV Act can be filed before any magistrate and relief can be sought urgently where there is immediate danger.
I would add one practical note: the law protects adults who have made an autonomous choice. It is not a substitute for honest communication between the partners themselves about their respective expectations and intentions.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your matter, please consult a qualified advocate.
Advocate Mandeep Kaur
Bar Council of Delhi · Delhi High Court & District Courts