Madras HC suggests granting ‘wife’ status to women in live-in relationships

The Madras High Court on Tuesday underlined the necessity of safeguarding the rights of women who find themselves entangled in the “modern web” of live-in relationships. Justice S Srimathy observed that while such relationships may be widespread, they come as a cultural shock to Indian society and often leave women without legal protection.

“Infact live-in relationship is a cultural shock to the Indian Society, but it is happening widely everywhere. The girls assume that they are modern and opt for live in relationship. But after some time when they realize that live-in relationship is not granting any protection as granted under marriage, the reality catches as fire and start burning them,” the court observed.

The court noted that many women enter live-in relationships believing them to be progressive choices, only to later realise that these arrangements do not offer the safeguards available under marriage. Emphasising the need to protect women affected by this changing social pattern, the bench suggested that live-in relationships could be equated with Gandharva marriages, a form of love marriage recognised among the eight types of marriages in ancient Indian tradition.

“In live-in relationship the women ought to be protected by granting the status of “wife” under Gandharva marriage / love marriage, so that the women in live-in relationship, even if it is under turbulence, may be provided with rights as “wife”,” the court said.

These observations were made while hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by a man who feared arrest in a case involving allegations of a false promise to marry. According to the prosecution, the accused had engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant by assuring her of marriage. When his parents later objected, the couple allegedly left their homes and travelled to Trichy to get married, where they rented a house and lived together.

The prosecution further stated that after the woman’s father filed a missing complaint, the couple was traced and brought to the police station. There, the petitioner again promised to marry the woman, but his family opposed the marriage and allegedly threatened to kill the couple due to it being an inter-caste relationship.

The petitioner, however, claimed that the allegations were false and fabricated. He argued that the relationship had ended long before the complaint was filed. He also submitted that he did not intend to marry the woman as he was unemployed, had no independent income, and was dependent on his parents for his daily expenses. On this basis, he sought anticipatory bail, asserting that he had committed no offence.

The court observed that Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceit, had been introduced to address such situations. Noting that the section had not been invoked in the present case, the court directed the police to include it.

It further recorded that the existence of the relationship between the parties was undisputed and that the petitioner had admitted his inability to marry the complainant after having had sexual relations with her. The court remarked that while minor girls are protected under the POCSO Act, and married or divorced adult women receive legal safeguards, women involved in live-in relationships often remain unprotected and continue to suffer mental trauma.

In the present case, the court observed that since sexual intercourse had occurred, either the woman was entitled to recognition as a wife or the accused had to be prosecuted for making a false promise of marriage. As the petitioner had refused to marry her, the court held that he was liable to be charged under Section 69 of the BNS.

Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations and finding prima facie material on record, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the plea.
(with Live Law inputs)