Answer:

Live-in relationships in India, though legally recognized, face societal disapproval due to deep-rooted cultural and traditional norms. The Supreme Court of India has upheld the legality of these relationships, but they remain controversial in many parts of the country. Despite judicial rulings, live-in couples often face social stigma, legal ambiguity, and practical difficulties, reflecting the gap between law and societal acceptance.

Challenges with respect to Social Acceptance

• Cultural Taboos and Moral Policing: Traditional values in India view live-in relationships as against the institution of marriage, leading to social alienation.
  For instance: In many small towns, couples in live-in relationships face ostracism from families and communities, reflecting the prevailing conservative mindset.
• Media Intrusion: Media often sensationalises live-in relationships, especially in high-profile cases, which reinforces negative perceptions and invites societal scrutiny.
  For example: The Shraddha Walkar case became a focal point of moral judgement, overshadowing the criminal aspects of the case.
• Interfaith Challenges: Live-in couples from different religious backgrounds face additional resistance due to religious conservatism and interfaith taboos.
  For instance: The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed an interfaith couple’s plea for protection, citing religious laws.
• Lack of Family Support: Many live-in couples experience rejection from their families, which often forces them to live isolated lives without emotional or financial support.
  For instance: Numerous couples in urban India report being disowned by their families for choosing to cohabit outside marriage.
• Difficulty in Securing Accommodation: Societal bias often extends to landlords, making it difficult for live-in couples to rent homes, as many housing societies prefer married tenants.
  For instance: Live-in couples in metro cities struggle to find accommodation due to housing societies enforcing discriminatory policies.

Challenges with respect to Legal Protection:

• Ambiguity in Inheritance Rights: Although children from live-in relationships are entitled to inheritance, legal complexities often arise in securing these rights.
  For example: The Domestic Violence Act 2005 protects women in live-in relationships, but property disputes for children remain complex and often contested.
• Lack of Joint Financial Rights: Live-in couples face hurdles in opening joint bank accounts, as the financial system does not fully recognize non-married couples.
  For instance: Banks often demand proof of financial dependence or long-term cohabitation, which live-in couples struggle to meet.
• Absence of Marriage-Like Protections: Unlike married couples, live-in partners often face difficulties in claiming benefits related to property, insurance, or pension.
  For instance: Inheritance laws for live-in partners are unclear, creating potential disputes if the relationship ends or one partner dies.
• Limited Legal Recourse in Disputes: Legal recourse in the event of relationship breakdown is not as clearly defined for live-in couples compared to married couples.
  For instance: The Supreme Court’s judgement allows live-in couples to cohabit but provides limited legal protection in case of separation or domestic disputes.
• Judicial Biases: Some judicial pronouncements exhibit conservative attitudes, which sometimes deny live-in couples their rights under existing laws.

Remedial Measures:

• Awareness Campaigns: Public campaigns can educate society about the legality of live-in relationships and reduce stigma by fostering acceptance of non-traditional relationships.
  For instance: Government-backed awareness campaigns could include sensitization programs on the rights of live-in couples.
• Amendment in Housing Policies: Legal reforms could mandate housing societies to treat live-in couples at par with married couples for accommodation.
  For instance: The Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) could be expanded to include non-discrimination clauses for live-in couples.
• Strengthening Legal Frameworks: Clear legal provisions protecting the financial and property rights of live-in partners could bridge existing legal gaps.
  For instance: The Domestic Violence Act can be further expanded to explicitly include inheritance rights for live-in partners.
• Judicial Reforms: Training for the judiciary to ensure unbiased treatment of live-in relationships in legal cases, promoting a progressive outlook.
  For instance: Including mandatory gender sensitization courses in the judicial curriculum can help prevent conservative rulings against live-in couples.
• Policy-Level Intervention: Government policies encouraging alternative relationship structures can be institutionalised to ensure comprehensive legal protection.
  For instance: Policies recognizing cohabitation agreements can provide clarity on financial and property rights.

India’s legal recognition of live-in relationships, though progressive, requires broader social acceptance and enhanced legal protection. To bridge the gap between societal norms and legal frameworks, proactive reforms are necessary. As societal attitudes gradually evolve, the state must ensure that live-in couples enjoy equal rights and protection under the law, fostering an inclusive and progressive social fabric.

DOWNLOAD PDF