Live-in relationships: Constitutional protection or judicial legislation?

NewsBharati    05-Aug-2026 11:57:56 AM   
Total Views |
The Supreme Court's recent decision extending the protection against cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) to women in qualifying live-in relationships has once again ignited a fundamental debate. The judgment is undoubtedly driven by a desire to protect women from abuse. That objective deserves appreciation. However, it also raises a larger constitutional question: Is the judiciary merely interpreting the law, or is it gradually creating a parallel framework of family law that Parliament has never enacted?

Live-in Relationships: Constitutional Protection or Judicial Legislation? 

No civilized society can deny legal protection to a woman who suffers cruelty, exploitation or violence. The State has a moral and constitutional obligation to ensure justice irrespective of social status. However, extending statutory provisions framed for marriage to live-in relationships is not merely a question of protection. It is a question of redefining the legal and social institution of marriage itself.
 
Indian jurisprudence has gradually expanded the legal recognition of live-in relationships over the past two decades. In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that two consenting adults are free to live together. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, it held that living together falls within the ambit of personal liberty under Article 21. In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, the Court evolved the concept of a "relationship in the nature of marriage" and laid down conditions under which such relationships could receive legal protection. Later, in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, the Court reiterated that a live-in relationship is neither a crime nor a sin and extended protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to deserving cases. The latest ruling under Section 498A is another step in the same direction.

Viewed individually, each judgment appears to address a specific hardship. Viewed collectively, however, they reveal a clear judicial trajectory. Without any comprehensive legislation enacted by Parliament, the legal status of live-in relationships has steadily expanded through judicial interpretation. The cumulative effect is that courts have substantially shaped an area of family law that traditionally falls within the legislative domain.
 
ALSO READ: PDP's Mehbooba insults India's national flag, holds it upside down during sit-in against Article 370 
 
This raises an important constitutional concern. The Constitution envisages a clear separation of powers. Parliament enacts laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets them. Judicial interpretation is indispensable, but interpretation cannot become legislation by another name. When courts repeatedly extend statutory rights to situations not expressly contemplated by the legislature, the line between interpretation and law-making begins to blur.

If Indian society is to recognise live-in relationships as carrying rights and obligations similar to marriage, should such a profound policy decision not emanate from Parliament after extensive public debate? Marriage is not merely a private contract between two individuals. It is a social institution with civil, cultural and legal consequences affecting inheritance, succession, legitimacy, maintenance, adoption and family stability. Such questions require democratic deliberation, not incremental judicial expansion.

Equally significant is the place of marriage in Indian civilisation. In Hindu tradition, marriage is a sanskar a sacred sacrament signifying commitment, duty and shared responsibility. Other faiths too attach profound moral and spiritual significance to marriage. The family built on this institution has been the foundation of Indian society for centuries.
 
Live-in Relationships: Constitutional Protection or Judicial Legislation?
 
A live-in relationship, by its very nature, is fundamentally different. It is generally based on voluntary cohabitation without the formal commitment, solemnity or legal obligations associated with marriage. The law may protect individuals from exploitation within such relationships, but it should not equate them with marriage unless the legislature consciously chooses to do so. Otherwise, the distinction between a permanent social institution and a private arrangement risks becoming increasingly blurred.

There is also a practical dimension. Section 498A was enacted to address the serious social evil of cruelty against married women. Over the years, even the Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged concerns regarding its misuse in certain cases and has issued safeguards against indiscriminate prosecutions. Extending its ambit to live-in relationships is likely to generate fresh questions. How will courts determine whether a relationship qualifies? What duration of cohabitation would suffice? What evidence would establish that the parties held themselves out as husband and wife? Will conflicting claims result in greater uncertainty and prolonged litigation? These issues cannot be answered solely through case-by-case adjudication.
 
ALSO READ: Maharashtra govt seeks Siddhivinayak trust report amid Rs 18 crore donation controversy 
 
None of this implies that women in live-in relationships should be left remediless. Every victim of cruelty deserves legal protection. However, the appropriate course would be for Parliament to enact a comprehensive legal framework defining the rights, duties and liabilities arising from such relationships. That would ensure clarity, certainty and democratic legitimacy while balancing individual rights with broader societal interests.

The debate, therefore, is not about denying justice to women. It is about preserving constitutional balance. Courts must undoubtedly protect fundamental rights, but they must also respect the boundaries assigned to each constitutional institution. A democracy functions best when Parliament legislates, the executive administers and the judiciary interprets. If one institution begins to perform the functions of another, however noble the intention, constitutional equilibrium is weakened.

The Supreme Court's latest judgment should therefore become the starting point of a national debate. India must decide, through its elected representatives, how far the law should recognise live-in relationships and where the institution of marriage should continue to enjoy a distinct legal status. In protecting individual rights, the nation must not lose sight of the institution that has sustained families and social stability across generations. Marriage is not merely a legal arrangement; it is a civilisational commitment. The law should protect every individual, but it must also preserve the values and institutions that have long held society together.
 
live-in relationships Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act Section 498A Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita