Legal Rights And Status Of Children Born From Live-In Relationships In India - A Socio-Legal Analysis
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Family & Personal Law
Published:
Updated:
LEGAL RIGHTS AND STATUS OF CHILDREN BORN FROM
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA: A SOCIO-LEGAL
ANALYSIS
Ishika Shrivastava, LL.M., Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur
ABSTRACT
Live-in partnerships are becoming more common in India as a practical substitute for marriage. It is defined as the domestic cohabitation of an adult unmarried couple. Although it appears to be a stress-free relationship with no legal obligations, there are many complexities, obligations, and potential legal issues. Recently, initiatives have been made to include it under the jurisdiction of various laws. It is socially stigmatized and taboo to acknowledge a relationship between two adults that does not revolve around the institution of marriage. This kind of relationship, which has been examined, is often described as a practical substitute that originated from Western ideas in a culture that prioritizes material interactions.
It is no longer illegal in India, and the Supreme Court has made numerous recommendations in a number of cases regarding property, child support, and legal recognition. It remains controversial in India. The main goal of the study is to fully comprehend the idea of a child's legitimacy "who is born out of a live-in relationship" by using secondary sources. Keywords: Live-in, Child, Legitimacy, Rights, Inheritance.
INTRODUCTION
A live-in relationship is a cooperative partnership between two mentally sound individuals who
are not legally or formally married. 1 Cohabitation is usually a sign of such a connection, albeit it's not always connected to sexual activity. Although moral and personal responsibilities may be mutually agreed upon, legal restrictions apply to such relationships. This is particularly true in India, which lacks a Unity Treaty in contrast to France and Canada, where people can enter into legal agreements and eventually grow accustomed to the same for social cohesion. In France, intimate relationships are governed by the Treaty of Agreements, where couples contract to live together and agree on the following rights. Cooperative connections need to be recognized in certain nations, like these. In India, nevertheless, this is not the case. For a living relationship to be comprehended as a novel idea, it must be presented in a few different ways.
This kind of living arrangement is characterized by partners who freely choose to live together, regardless of their marital status or the consent of the law, while fully knowing of the repercussions of doing so. This is particularly true in big Indian cities like Bangalore, Delhi, and Mumbai, where couples prefer to live together before getting married in order to save money and spend quality time together. The law views these statements as dishonest since their main purpose is financial gain. This kind of relationship arises naturally when a man or woman gives rise to the notion that a young man is widowed, divorced, or single prior to marriage. On the other hand, bigamy laws forbid the recognition of this second marriage. The relationship has therefore evolved into an internal stay.
A similar predicament arises when a couple decides to stay together even though their marriage is doomed or not. Living relationships suffer as a result. It's critical to comprehend this distinction because lawmakers and courts are currently working to pass laws protecting partners—especially women who are trapped in fictitious live-in relationships—through legislation. But often, this results in people in selected partnerships abusing these rules. Therefore, when drafting legislation, the challenge is to strike a balance 1 Choudhary Laxmi Narayan, Mridula Narayan & Mridul Deepanshu, Live-In Relationships in India—Legal and Psychological Implications, 3 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSEXUAL HEALTH 18–23(2021), https://journals. sagepub. com/doi/full/10. 1177/2631831820974585
between these conflicting interests. Understanding this distinction is crucial because lawmakers and courts are currently working to pass laws to protect partners—especially women who are stuck in fictitious live-in relationships. Nevertheless, this frequently results in individuals in meticulously chosen partnerships abusing these rules. Therefore, the challenge in crafting legislation is to strike a balance between these conflicting interests. Cohabitation, also referred to as live-in partnerships, is a kind of non-marital relationship in which two people of the same or different sexes live together without having any formal legal rights against one another. As the saying goes, "Marriage is happening in heaven. " This means that marriage has important implications. In a religious ceremony, two individuals of different genders make a lifelong commitment to each other.
Marriage is widely accepted in society and has the ability to strengthen the family unit. Married couples, along with their loved ones, strive to overcome difficult situations together. Contrary to other situations, life can be easily broken by a lack of social and legal support. Let's just sum up by saying that marriage has long been seen as a socially and legally acceptable institution in India, with important moral and religious obligations. In life, it is the perpetual joining of two individuals into one person. In life, it is the unwavering union of two individuals as one person. Apart from creating such a company, young Indians are currently adopting a different live cooperative model more and more frequently. To interpret this as a sign of rebellion or a sign of infatuation with Western culture would be impolite.
It must be acknowledged that young couples nowadays sometimes find it simple to establish non-exclusive relationships. It offers them a chance to see how compatible they are, which could strain their marriage.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What is the current legal framework in India governing the rights and status of children born from live-in relationships, and how does it address issues of legitimacy, inheritance, custody, and maintenance? • How have Indian courts interpreted and applied existing laws in cases involving children born from live-in relationships?
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES-
The primary objective of this study is to conduct a comprehensive socio-legal analysis on the legal rights and status of children born from live-in relationships in India. The research aims to explore the intricate intersection of social dynamics and legal frameworks that govern the rights and status of children in such relationships, with a focus on understanding the current legal landscape, societal perceptions, and potential areas for reform. Specifically, the research seeks to achieve the following objectives: • Examine the existing legal provisions in India that pertain to the rights and status of children born from live-in relationships, including but not limited to issues of legitimacy, inheritance, custody, and maintenance. • Identify any gaps or ambiguities in the current legal framework that may impact the rights and status of children in live-in relationships.
• Analyse relevant judicial decisions and precedents that have shaped the legal landscape concerning the rights of children born from live-in relationships.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-
This study's research methodology is theoretical in nature. The primary goal is to comprehend live-in relationships in India and the related laws, acts, books, news, and cases. It also aims to familiarize readers with the intricacies of this emerging social structure. Following that, attempts were made to look into the problems and difficulties that the people were facing using descriptive and analytical methods.
LEGAL RIGHTS OF SUCH CHILDREN-
A child born into a live-in relationship has the following three rights:
Legitimacy: In a traditional country like India, living together is still frowned upon, and a child born outside of marriage is considered an illegitimate child. Ancient customs in almost all Indian religious traditions deny illegitimate offspring any rights or obligations. Only children born into a married couple are regarded as legitimate children, worthy of the love and support
of their family as well as social respect. Given that living together under one roof is a highly deliberate and educated decision made by two sound minds, identifying a child born out of wedlock as an illegitimate child is a contentious moral issue. Although a live-in couple's relationship and the children that result from it are not governed by a single piece of legislation, the judiciary has tied live-in relationships and the children that result from them to a number of previously existing statutes. Maintenance: According to "Section 125 of the Indian penal code," a person may be required to provide maintenance to his spouse, kids, guardians, and other formal and informal family members if the relevant judge so directs. One common term for the need to care for someone else is maintenance.
It is crucial to take into account the possibility that a child will be born into a lifetime relationship. In terms of roommates' and their offspring's rights, a living relationship's legal component includes maintenance, which is commonly understood as the duty to support another individual. Section 21 of the "Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956" states that "a legitimate son, son of a predeceased son, or the son of a predeceased son, so long as he is a minor, or/and a legitimate unmarried daughter, unmarried daughter of a son, or the unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son shall be maintained as dependents by his/her father or the estate of his/her deceased father. " Nevertheless, this section of the law does not protect children born of cohabitation, so maintenance is prohibited under it.
An illegitimate child born into a live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance under "Section
125 of the CrPC," which provides for the maintenance of children, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, while they are juveniles and after they reach the majority, where such a child has not yet been able to support themselves. This decision was made in the historic case of "Dimple Gupta v. Rajiv Gupta"2, where the Indian judiciary used its influence to push for social justice. "Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973" is a paradigm of progressive policies intended to protect child rights in situations where the persons exposed to such regulations are not at fault, as highlighted in "Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v Mrs. Veen Kaushal."3
2 Criminal Appeal No.1139 of 2002
3 AIR 1978 SC 1807, 1979 CriLJ 3, (1978) 4 SCC 71, 1978 3 SCR 782
The claim to maintenance is conditional on the child's fatherhood being confirmed," the judge stated. This has paved the way for similar children to receive equal treatment in terms of property rights because the Court appears to treat children from both legal and illicit relationships equally in terms of maintenance rights. As the Supreme Court of Kerela decided in PV Susheela v. Komalavally,4 the refusal to provide child support to an unmarried couple may be subject to Article 32 for violating fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, such as Article 21 that guarantees the right to life and liberty and the denial of taking these rights away. Property: Children born into live-in relationships and sexual unions have the right to inherit their parents' possessions.
According to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, a legitimate child— boy or girl—forms a Class-I successor to the joint family property. However, in Hindu law, an illegitimate child only receives his mother's property—not that of his purported father— because illegitimacy complicates the father's side succession. Legitimacy is a prerequisite for inheritance rights in Hindu law, and the most important requirement that needs to be satisfied is a reasonable amount of time. The Hindu marriage laws address property or inheritance rights in a confusing way when it comes to situations involving illegitimate children or children born outside of marriage. Consequently, there have been a number of contradictory rulings and legal disputes.
If the intention was never to get married, it is questionable how children born into a live-in relationship can be considered legal heirs; therefore, these children should not be allowed to inherit. Nonetheless, the courts should prioritize the welfare of society as a whole over the welfare of an individual or family. Owing to their conferred jurisdiction, the courts have expanded the application of these regulations to encompass susceptible children, guaranteeing that their parents' errors do not stigmatize them. The property rights question was not adequately addressed under the HMA 1955. "Section 16" of the Act, which deals with the legitimacy of illegitimate and illegitimate children, identifies
4 I (2000) DMC 376
this part of the relationship in a literal and intangible way, which frequently results in conflicting decisions and legal consequences, as seen in the cases of – "Bharata Matha & Ors. v R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors" and "Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun. "5 The issue in both situations was whether the children of an illegitimate marriage or not was entitled to the assets of the parents who bought them. It is occasionally maintained that there should be no legal certainty for the intermediate relationship and that children born into that sexual relationship should not be entitled to inheritance rights because there is no attempt to marry.
In such cases, the courts have exercised their authority and provided a thorough explanation of the principles to make sure that children are not subjected to the fallout from their parents' misconduct and consequently face difficulties in their social and economic lives. In the case of Bharata Mata, the Supreme Court decided that an unmarried child only had the right to personal property and was not entitled to inherit ancestral property. The Court determined that giving legal legitimacy to children who may have been illegally adopted is the main goal of "Section 16 of the HMA, 1955," which deals with the legitimacy and property rights of children in null and void marriages. Any additional privileges granted under this section would be justified by the part that upholds a court order under the pretense of justification.
Though such relationships typically do not involve the effort to marry and are therefore naturally illegal, courts have held in the past that any child born to a specific relative for a reasonable length of time is not denied inheritance rights. This exercise is continued with Article 39 (f) of the Indian Constitution, which evolves the reason for the state's involvement in the child's development. In Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bail, the Supreme Court broke precedent by allowing children born out of cohabitation to inherit and designating them as "legal heirs. " Custody- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 states that "the mother becomes the natural guardian in the absence of the father, which means when the father is incapable of serving as the child's guardian. " The father is his legitimate minor children's natural guardian.
Live-in relationships are indirectly addressed by Section 6 Sub-Section (6) of
5 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12639/09)
the same Act, which grants the mother custody rights in cases of children born out of illegitimate partnerships. It has been observed that specific laws are needed to handle the custody-related matter of children born out of cohabitation in terms of custodial rights. Custody rights are important when a couple decides to get a divorce. Since live-in relationships are not specifically governed by law, if a court is presented with a custody dispute of this kind, it may handle the case as though it were involving an unmarried single mother or the child of a married couple.
THE JUDICIAL APPROACH
The topic of interpersonal relationships was first examined by the Supreme Court of India in the 1978 case of "Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation"6. In this instance, a cohabiting couple has been together for roughly fifty years. Whether or not to grant this couple the same legal status as a married couple was up to the court to determine. The couple's 50year relationship was given legal recognition when the Supreme Court decided in favor of their right to live together in a house. Furthermore, the 2010 case "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal"7 The requirements that have to be met were outlined in order for a live connection to seem genuine. It stated that a couple who are dating should be able to legally get married and present themselves as a married couple to the public.
Moreover, for a long time to come, this couple would have to consciously choose to remain together and present themselves to the community as a married couple. The court further declared that not all married couples will be covered by the Domestic Violence Act's protections. The court decided that if a man hired a woman, used her for sex, and supported her financially, he could not be considered married. Consequently, the court's requirements must be met and verified in order for the business to be profitable. In order to handle the live compensation maintenance awards, the court used the concept of "palimony," which was initially used in the California Supreme Court case of "Marvin v.
6 1978 AIR 1557, 1979 SCR (1) 1
7 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2028-2029__OF 2010 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
Nos.22732274/2010]
Marvin."8 The Supreme Court of India dismissed every accusation made against the petitioner, a South Indian actor, in the case of "S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr."9 According to "Section
499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860," he was accused of defamation. It was also reported that
he supported engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage. The Indian Supreme Court has decided that cohabitation without a formal marriage is not unlawful, despite the fact that it is considered a vice in traditional Indian society. According to the court, being in an unoccupied relationship is "illegal" since it violates the right to live freely with one another. Live-in partnerships were divided into five categories by the Supreme Court in the case of "Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma."10 • An unmarried adult woman and an unmarried adult man are in a domestic relationship. • A married woman and an unmarried adult male started a domestic relationship on purpose. • A single adult female and a married man started a household relationship.
•
A cohabitation partnership between individuals of the same sex.
PREVIOUS CASES
In 2008, the Supreme Court decided the case of "Tulsa & Ors vs. Durghatiya & Ors ,"11 which established the legal status of children born into cohabitation. Among the essential conditions In order for a child born into a live-in relationship to be accepted by society, the parents of that child must have lived together for an extended length of time and presented themselves as a married couple. Stated differently, it cannot be a "walk in and walk out relationship." According to the court, a child born into a live-in relationship also has rights to the assets of his or her parents.
8 18 Cal. 3d 660, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106 (1976)
9 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 913 of 2010[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4010 of 2008]
10 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2009 OF 2013(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.4895 OF 2012)
11 Appeal (civil) 648 of 2002
The Supreme Court decided in “SPS Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan”12 that a man and a woman are considered husband and wife under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act if they live together under the same roof for an extended period of time. The children that arise from such a live-in relationship will therefore be permitted. In "Bharatha Matha v. R Vijaya Renganathan& Ors,"13 the Indian Supreme Court ruled that a child born into a live-in relationship is a legitimate child and is entitled to access their parents' assets, with the exception of ancestral undivided property The Kerala High Court's perspectives on cohabitation- The Kerala High Court, considering the case of a reconciled couple trying to retrieve their child who was adopted by a childless couple, declared that if a woman feels she is worthless without a man's support, the system has failed her.
14 "Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devata, yatraitaastu na pujyantesarvaastatrafalaah kriyaah" is the couplet the court used to illustrate the struggles of a single mother. "Divinity blossoms where women are honored, and all action, no matter how noble, remains fruitless where women are dishonored. "Judges A Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath state that the case of John and Anitha (names changed) explored the difficulties of a live-in couple, the loneliness of a single parent, a mother's love for her child, and the rights of the biological father. John and Anitha, caseworkers, first crossed paths in 2018 during the devastating floods in Kerala. Anitha became pregnant while they were living together. John was a working artist who relocated to Karnataka for a movie role. After that, it appears that he either stopped talking to Anitha or remained unclear.
An anxious Anitha made a valiant attempt to get in touch with John. On May 8, 2020, a distraught and devastated Anitha gave the baby over to the Child Welfare Committee. The court observed that Anitha's chat conversations with the social worker demonstrate the vulnerability of unmarried women in obtaining parental rights. The chat messages that show Anitha's care for the child she conceived depict suffering and the anguish of motherhood. The
12 1994 AIR 133, 1994 SCC (1) 460
13 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7108 of 2003
14 The Quint, Child of Live-in Couple To Be Construed As Child of Marriage:HC, THEQUINT (2021),
https://www.thequint.com/news/law/for-purpose-of-surrender-for-adoption-live-in-couples-to-be-treatedlikemarried-couples-under-jj-act
child was offered up for adoption to a couple on February 2, 2021. But after John and Anitha got back in touch, they went to the High Court to request that their child be returned. The biological father is sympathetic and caring for the child, so the court decided that the committee should consider the couple's request. The court also submitted the certificate attesting to the child's legal freedom for adoption under section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act. "In a place where we boast 100 percent literacy, our attitude toward a woman is resenting; a single mother has little financial or social assistance," the judge stated. She experiences emotional challenges and comes to believe that her guilt will force her to live alone forever. The system does not provide her with much assistance. It is long overdue for the government to come up with a scheme to support single mothers.
When two people live together, they respect each other's rights and obligations. It's more of a legally binding contract. Children in such a partnership acknowledge both of their biological parent's rights, the court said.
CONCLUSION
Given the current circumstances, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that, although certain laws, like Section 16 of the HMA 1955, give children born into live-in relationships legal protection, their claims to ancestral property and support are contested and differ depending on the circumstances of each case. Through their decisions, the Indian courts have been instrumental in providing a legal foundation for children born out of cohabiting couples. In a similar vein, there is disagreement over who gets custody of a child born out of a live-in relationship even though "Section 6 (b) of the HMGA 1956" exists. It is reasonable to presume that a child of a live-in relationship will experience uncertainty about their legal status, place of origin, and future rights throughout their life given the current legal conditions.
It is reasonable to presume that a child of a live-in relationship will experience uncertainty about their legal status, place of origin, and future rights throughout their life given the current legal conditions. The child may experience mental and emotional distress as a result of this. To prevent this, clear guidelines should be put in place and current legislation should be amended to better reflect the rights and status of children born into live-in relationships. Through appropriate integration, this will help the child develop emotional, mental, and physical stability.
REFERENCES
1. GS Bagga, What are the Rights of a Child Born in a live-in Relationship inIndia?, GSBAGGA.COM (2019), https://gsbagga.com/blog/what-are-the-rights-of-a-childborn-in-a-live-in-relationship-in-india/ (last visited Apr 24, 2022). 2. Choudhary Laxmi Narayan, Mridula Narayan & Mridul Deepanshu, Live-In Relationships in India—Legal and Psychological Implications,3JOURNAL
OFPSYCHOSEXUAL
HEALTH
18–23 (2021), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2631831820974585 (lastvisited Apr 24, 2022). 3. Bharat Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. –Home, HOME (2016), https://projectlegalrenaissance.wordpress.com/tag/bharat-matha-anr-v-r-vijayarenganathan-ors/ (last visited Apr 24, 2022). 4. The Quint, Child of Live-in Couple To Be Construed As Child of Marriage:HC, THEQUINT (2021), https://www.thequint.com/news/law/for-purpose-of-surrenderfor-adoption-live-in-couples-to-betreated-like-married-couples-under-jj-act(last visited Apr 24, 2022).