A presumed cohabitation or a performed marriage: Unpacking this modern form of union
- Legal Journey
- Oct 25
- 22 min read
Abstract
This research examines the evolving landscape of intimate relationships in India, primarily focusing on the tension between legal presumptions of marriage arising out of long-term cohabitation and the traditional emphasis on formal ceremonial marriages. Through an analysis of the legal frameworks, judicial interpretations, and an empirical survey of ninety-five young respondents, this paper stresses upon some critical questions: How do individuals in presumed marriages perceive formal ceremonies? Whether younger generations will continue choosing formal unions? Can cohabitation replace a formal marriage, or whether cohabitation functions as a mere trial period? The findings of this study reveal a complex interplay between traditional values, legal recognition, and the modern and evolving relationship preferences, suggesting that while cohabitation gains legal acceptance, formal marriage ceremonies retain significant cultural and legal importance in Indian society. Legal reforms extending property and succession rights, coupled with greater social awareness, are necessary to provide equitable protections without undermining the enduring cultural significance of marriage in India.
Introduction
The institution of marriage in India has long been regarded as both a sacrament as well as a cornerstone of social order. A traditional marriage under the Hindu law requires a solemnization ceremony. It can be any ceremony which is prevalent in that particular community that is entering into a marriage. Only after the performance of the requisite ceremony will the law confer legal validity on the married couple. However, in the recent decades, the Indian courts have moved past this limitation and have recognised marriages even without such formalities. Under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), uninterrupted cohabitation between a man and woman can give rise to a rebuttable presumption of marriage. This presumption also extends most, though not all, legal protections that are given to a couple who undergoes a formal marriage.
This system of recognising and protecting long-term cohabitations in a similar manner as formal marriages poses some very interesting questions in a country so intently focused upon formal and societal requirements. Some of the questions that naturally arise, and which this paper seeks to answer are: Will the younger generation move towards a non-marital cohabitation or a formal union? Since long-term cohabitation is a presumed marriage, will the younger generation still opt for a formal union? Is cohabitation a mere trial period which precedes marriage? And most critically, can non-marital cohabitation ever replace a formal marriage?
The aim of this paper is to investigate the ways in which the formal form of union differs from the presumption of marriage after long cohabitation. The research also aims to explore the general perspective of the younger demographic through empirical research, legal implications through various judicial pronouncements, and the evolving significance of partnership choices to provide a new understanding of the transition from a traditional marriage towards this form of union which is now gaining trend in contemporary society.
The objective of the paper is to question the very identity of marriage as a social and legal construct and to critically assess whether cohabitation which is in the nature of marriage can serve as a viable alternative or replacement.
This topic has been chosen because of its contemporary relevance. Today, India is at a transitional juncture between a traditional marriage and judicial recognition of cohabitation in the nature of marriage. The delay in the age of marriage[1], changing perspectives in relation to various forms of unions[2], and judicial developments in recognising those relationships altogether create a unique blend where the boundaries of marriage need to be redefined.
The literature gap on this topic is significant in the Indian context. Most of the literature that exists on this topic is western centric. The papers existing within the Indian framework lack a big enough sample size to draw any significant conclusions. This paper aims to address this gap by situating cohabitation within the Indian socio-legal framework, thereby contributing to both doctrinal and empirical understandings of evolving marriage and family structures.
The scope of this paper is limited to Indian law and society. However, due to the numerous laws governing marriages in India, this paper will primarily rely on the Special Marriage Act of 1954 as the legal framework. This statute has been preferred over others because of its secular nature and also because all the laws relating to marriage are in one way or another similar to the provisions contained under this law. Wherever notable differences arise in the legal framework in relation to this research paper, it will be addressed as required. This discussion however will remain limited only to heterosexual unions, excluding same-sex marriages or relationships and any other forms of unions, which though are important, warrant independent treatment and hence are beyond the scope of this paper.
As previously mentioned, this paper will also rely on an empirical study conducted specifically for this paper. The study was conducted in the manner of a survey through a google form which was widely circulated all over India. The survey has been answered by over ninety participants while keeping their anonymity which ensures honest and candid responses without any fear. The survey will have its limitations, namely, that it would have been only filled by persons interested in the topic that may give rise to bias. Secondly, it would mainly be filled by individuals from urban areas which might overshadow the perspectives of the people in the rural areas. But even with these limitations, the conclusions drawn therefrom should be substantially accurate at least towards the urban population.
Historical and Cultural Context
The Sacrament of Marriage in India
Marriage has long been viewed as not only a contractual union but as a sacrosanct union in Indian society. It is viewed in the Hindu tradition as a samskara (sacrament), which is an indissoluble relationship not only of two people but also of families, generations and spiritual fates.[3] Such a conception underscores marriage as an obligation aimed at procreation, the continuation of lineage, and adherence to dharma.[4] Classical texts, including the Manusmriti, emphasized marriage less as a matter of personal choice and more as a duty central to social and cosmic order.[5] Marital pressure, especially caste and community pressure, has long been served to strengthen the centrality of the institution.[6]
Under Islamic tradition marriage (nikah) though is in the form of a contract, also carries religious and cultural weight.[7] It fully legitimizes sexual relations, right to create a family, and inheritance the right to inheritance. Similarly, Christian and other religious traditions in India uphold marriage as a divinely sanctioned union.
Under modern statutory law, especially under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, marriage has acquired a dual character; sacramental as well as contractual, reflecting the evolution of family as an institution in India.[8] This duality illustrates the evolving character of family as an institution within Indian law.
Alternatives to marriage
Despite marriage’s dominance, history records various forms of non-formal unions. The concept of Gandharva vivaha (marriage by mutual consent) in ancient Hindu literature bears some resemblance to modern day cohabitation, as it did not require elaborate rituals but was purely based on the urges and affection of the couple.[9]Practices such as concubinage and other non-ritualized relationships also existed, though often stigmatized and denied full social legitimacy.
These historical precedents highlight that while formal marriage has remained the normative and dominant structure, alternative forms of intimate unions have always existed at the margins. The current recognition of long-term cohabitation as a basis for presuming marriage may thus be viewed as a radical break from tradition and more as a reconfiguration of these historical patterns within a modern constitutional and legal framework.
Formal Marriages under Indian Law
Under the Indian laws, marriage is governed by different personal laws that apply to the different religions. Therefore, the conditions of a formal marriage differ across the different religions. Some of the personal laws that govern marriages in India include the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the Special Marriage Act of 1954, Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872, Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 among others. These laws not only specify what defines a legal marriage, but also determines the bundle of social and legal outcomes arising therein, including inheritance, legitimacy of children, and dissolution of marriage.
Unlike its religious counterparts, the Special Marriage Act of 1954 is not too reliant on the needs for any ceremonial requirements. The Act simply states that “The marriage may be solemnized in any form which the parties may choose to adopt”[10], implying that the parties are free to choose among themselves the manner in which they wish to solemnise their marriage. One important requirement under this act however is the registration of the marriage after the solemnization.[11]
The personal laws require the fulfillment of certain ceremonial requirements for a marriage to be considered a valid marriage. If such ceremonies have been conducted, not only the society but also the law views the couple as to be legally married. But non-fulfillment of such requirements may result in the marriage being declared to be invalid, void or irregular and as a result will not confer any legal status or rights arising out of a marriage.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Doly Rani vs Manish Kumar Chanchal[12] “If there has been no marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the registration would not confer legitimacy to the marriage. There has to be a Hindu marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Act inasmuch as there must be a marriage ceremony which has taken place between the parties in accordance with the said provision”
This dual legal regime illustrates the coexistence of two conceptions of marriage in India. One which treats ritual solemnization as essential to legal validity, and the other that allows greater flexibility by emphasizing registration and legal recognition over religious formalities. The distinction becomes especially significant when contrasted with the presumption of marriage that arises from cohabitation, which operates outside both ceremonial compliance and statutory registration.
Historical Basis for Cohabitation and Presumption as Marriage
The recognition of long-term cohabitation as giving rise to a presumption of marriage is not novel within the Indian jurisprudence. Historically, Indian courts, taking inspiration from English common law, have applied the principle that where a man and woman live together continuously as husband and wife even without a formal marriage, the law may presume marriage, unless contrary evidence is produced. This presumption operates not only to stabilise social relations but also to safeguard the legitimacy of children born from such unions.
The Privy Council in Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Blahamy[13] held that prolonged cohabitation raises a strong presumption in favor of marriage. This presumption serves as a tool to protect the legitimacy of children and to stabilize familial relations in the absence of formal proof of solemnization. This case has consequently been cited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation[14] upholding the presumption of marriage after long cohabitation.
These precedents reflect a consistent judicial approach that is taken by the Indian Courts. A cohabitation of sufficient duration coupled with stability, and societal recognition can be treated as equivalent to marriage in the eyes of law. This presumption of marriage has served as an important tool towards preserving social legitimacy in the absence of formal proof of solemnization.
Section 119, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)
Section 119[15] provides that the courts can presume the existence of certain facts based on human behaviour and the ordinary course of natural events. The application of this provision to cohabitation allows the courts to presume the existence of a valid marriage when a couple has lived as husband and wife over a considerable amount of time. This presumption however is not an automatic but rather is merely discretionary and is determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.
This provision and presumption is rooted in public policy which is aimed at preventing the destabilization of family as an institution and also to avoid the social stigma which is attached to illegitimacy of children.[16] In doing so, the law provides a measure of social security to women and children who might otherwise be rendered vulnerable by the absence of formal proof of marriage.
Importantly, the presumption under Section 119 is secular in nature and has been applied by Indian courts across religious communities. The Islamic law emphasizes contractual elements and witness requirements for marriage validity, courts have accepted the application of the Section 119 presumption to Muslim couples in long-term cohabitation [17].
However, Academic analysis notes tension between this secular presumption and Islamic prohibitions on extramarital relationships (zina[18]), suggesting that "continuously doing the zina will not give any presumption to the marriage".[19]
Consequently, while Section 119 provides an evidentiary mechanism which is flexible enough to even recognise stable cohabitation as marriage, however its application is not universal. This practice reflects a balancing act between secular legal principles seeking to protect vulnerable relationships and the particular requirements of personal laws that continue to govern the validity of marriage within India.
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments
The Supreme Court has been instrumental in the development of the jurisprudence on cohabitation and presumption of marriage. In the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation[20], the Court upheld the presumption of marriage between a couple who had lived together for over 50 years, observing that “a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock” from prolonged cohabitation. This decision established the principle that continuity, stability, and social acceptance of a relationship may suffice to recognize it as marriage even in the absence of documentary or ceremonial proof.
Similarly, in Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant[21], the Court reaffirmed that long-term live-in relationships could be presumed as marriage, provided there was no legal obstruction such as an already subsisting marriage of one party.
At the same time, the Court has clarified the boundaries of the doctrine. In the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma[22], the court drew a distinction between stable, long-term relationships “in the nature of marriage” and casual or transient arrangements. The Court held that not every live-in relationship merits such presumption, especially when they fall under the category of “walk-in, walk-out” arrangements lacking any stability.
Taken together, these judgments illustrate the Supreme Court’s nuanced approach wherein the courts, while leaning towards recognizing stable and socially acknowledged cohabitations and marriage, have simultaneously guarded against extending the presumption to relationships that do not reflect the essential attributes of wedlock. The jurisprudence thereof reflects an attempt to balance social legitimacy and individual protection with legal consistency and moral boundaries.
Rebuttable or Non-Rebuttable Presumption?
The presumption of marriage based on long cohabitation is a rebuttable presumption[23]. Therefore, even though the courts will presume a marriage when specific requirements are met, it will also give the parties seeking to challenge the legal status of the relationship, an opportunity to refute the presumption and to demonstrate that the cohabitation was not in the nature of marriage.
While the courts have a tendency to lean in favour of legitimacy and social stability, unimpeachable evidence to the contrary can rebut this presumption. For instance, evidence of a subsisting marriage, inability to conduct the necessary ceremonies, or an explicit acknowledgment of the absence of marital intent can rebut the presumption of marriage.
It is therefore a rule of evidence and not of substantive law which is specifically designed to shift the burden of proof and not to conclusively decide marital status. This practice of the Court reflects the jurisprudential inclination of formalizing the stable relations and safeguarding the interests of the concerned parties, especially the women, even in prolonged cohabitation.
Hence, the presumption of marriage can be best understood as a pragmatic judicial tool which is designed to secure social stability and fairness even in situations where formal proof of marriage is lacking. Its rebuttable character underscores the perspective of the law and how it seeks to promote legitimacy as well as protects dependents, without entirely collapsing the distinction between cohabitation and formal marriages.
Rights and Protections for Cohabiting Couples vs. Formally Married Couples
Even though both cohabiting couples and formally married couples have many similarities, significant differences remain between them. Married couples have unquestionable rights in respect of matrimonial statues including inheritance, maintenance, legitimacy of offsprings, succession, and protection under personal laws. Their status as a married couple is automatically recognised by both law and society, conferring legal certainty and social legitimacy.
Cohabiting couples, on the other hand, obtain protections primarily by judicial interpretation and welfare legislations. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) explicitly extends safeguards to women in “relationships in the nature of marriage,” and as a result acknowledges live-in relationships. However, rights of succession, coparcenary rights and other statutory benefits are not available to cohabiting couples. In the case of Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan[24], the court confirmed the legitimacy of children but limited their right to inheritance to self-acquired property of the parents and not to the ancestral or coparcenary property of the parents.
As a result, the jurisprudence reveals a limited recognition of cohabitation. While the presumption of marriage as well as welfare legislations provide crucial safeguards, specifically for women and children, cohabitation on the other hand has not been placed on the same footing as with formal marriage. The legal preference is evident, even though cohabitation may help with social vulnerability, however it does not fully replicate the rights and entitlements arising from a formal union of marriage.
Social Perspectives on Presumed Cohabitation in India
Although the legal framework and judicial precedents form the foundation of what may be construed as presumed cohabitation as marriage, the legal context within which such unions exist cannot be fully appreciated without considering the social context under which this union exists. In India, marriage is not only a personal relationship but is also a cultural and communal institution, bound up with caste, kinship, and religious identity.[25] The cohabitation that leads towards a presumption of marriage generally conflicts with the already deep-rooted norms, expectations and hierarchies.
Changing Youth Attitudes
Empirical research[26] and cultural observations[27] have revealed that the younger generation, particularly those living in urban areas, are becoming more accepting towards cohabitation as a form of union, and additionally, they are in many ways treating it as a “trial marriage” to see if they get along before they can commit to the more serious formal union.[28] Although this is open, traditional values and family pressures still play a major role, particularly beyond metropolitan settings; where issues on social standing discourages many individuals to come out openly and embrace such relations.
Gendered Dimensions
The gender disparity is evident even within the cohabiting experience. Women in cohabiting relationships are at a greater risk of stigma, moral policing and social exclusion.[29] Irrespective of the safeguards recognised by the courts, especially under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, patriarchal norms continue to dominate, giving a unique status to formal marriages as the only legitimate form of union.[30] In this context, the presumption of marriage is intended to serve as a protective mechanism but still fails in nullifying the underlying gender disparities.[31]
Caste, Community, and Religion
In India, marriage is a tool for preserving caste and religious boundaries. On the other hand, cohabitation leaves ample room where these lines can be easily crossed. As a result, these kinds of relationships often face severe resistance. This presumption of law is still constrained in the presence of deep cultural obstacles which are evidently demonstrated through ostracization, honor-related violence, and family conflicts.[32]
Urban-Rural Divide
Acceptance of cohabitation hints towards an urban-rule divide. Cohabiting in urban areas is more of a possibility as well as an even more accepted practice, albeit not completely, due to anonymity and exposure to cultural trends around the world. In rural areas, on the other hand, where communal observation of couples is high, cohabiting couples often disguise their cohabiting as marriage in order to secure legitimacy.[33] The assumption of marriage in this case conforms to lived realities because social survival requires conforming to the pretence of being married.
Children and Social Stigma
Although courts have repeatedly affirmed that children of long-cohabiting are legitimate, societal acceptance remains limited.[34] These children could face implicit marginalization in schools, familial ceremonies, and inheritance disputes. Legal provisions therefore help to mitigate these vulnerabilities, but social stigma still impacts their lived experiences.
Marriage as Social Capital
Marriage in India is a form of social capital which gives access and rights to kinship systems, property rights, and recognition within the community. Even with presumptions granted by the court, cohabitation does not have such a value. In live-in relationship, couples might still be excluded in familial rituals, inheritance, and general interconnection with other communities.
Media and Cultural Shifts
The digital media have started to present live-in relationships as something to aspire to, particularly in urban settings. These representations in culture are shaping the attitude of the younger generation towards slowly accepting cohabitation. Nevertheless, this change in culture is still disproportionate and it often clashes with the established authority of family, caste and religion.
Empirical Findings
This section of the paper draws upon survey data collected from ninety-five students across India with a mean age of twenty-three years. The purpose of this survey was to capture the perspectives of the younger generation on the central questions raised in this study; Will the younger generation move towards a non-marital cohabitation or a formal union? Since long-term cohabitation is a presumed marriage, will the younger generation still opt for a formal union? Can non-marital cohabitation ever replace a formal marriage? The findings of this survey reveal a nuanced understanding of how law, culture, and personal preferences intersect in shaping contemporary choices around intimate partnerships.
It must be noted that all the questions in this survey were optional to answer to ensure that all the answers received in this survey were voluntary in nature. But this also led to a situation where not every question was answered by all the 95 respondents. To adequately acknowledge this drawback, the exact number of respondents for each particular question will be mentioned to paint a much clearer picture of the whole scenario.
Will the younger generation move towards a non-marital
Cohabitation or a formal union?
The survey data provides valuable insights into the preferences of the younger generation in India. Out of the 94 respondents on this question, a significant majority of 58 respondents chose a formal marriage as a better option while 23 respondents preferred non-marital cohabitation. Although a small minority expressed unconventional preferences such as polyamory or contractual marriages, these remain exceptional preferences rather than the norm. This divide, coupled with the previous discussions suggests that the cultural and legal legitimacy attached to marriage continues to make it the dominant choice.
However, the other responses also reveal an important nuance. When asked whether they would consider a live-in relationship as a trial period before marriage, out of the 93 respondents, 46 participants replied “yes” and 29 said “maybe”, leaving only 16 individuals who rejected the idea outright. This demonstrates that while marriage remains the eventual outcome for many, cohabitation is increasingly being perceived as a transitional stage. A pragmatic means of testing compatibility before committing to a lifelong union.
Intentions towards marriage further strengthen this trend. Many respondents expressed a desire to marry, citing reasons such as companionship and social recognition as the main driving force towards decision. Yet, the willingness to adopt cohabitation as an intermediate step highlights the adaptive strategies of the younger generation in reconciling modern relationship choices with entrenched cultural expectations.
Hence, it is evident that the younger generation is not abandoning marriage but is merely reshaping the path to be taken towards it. While formal unions remain the ultimate preference, yet non-marital cohabitation is also gaining widespread acceptance as a legitimate precursor to marriage rather than as its replacement. The findings illustrate a dual reality. While marriage continues to hold normative dominance in Indian society, yet cohabitation is slowly and steadily becoming normalised as a socially acceptable stage in the path towards marriage.
Since long-term cohabitation is a presumed marriage, will the younger generation still opt for a formal union?
The responses gathered indicate that even with the legal presumption of marriage arising from long-term cohabitation, the younger generation continues to place significant value on the act of formal solemnization. When participants were asked why they would still choose a formal marriage despite the presumption of marriage under law, many highlighted the importance of “rites and customs,” “social legitimacy,” and “family recognition.” These responses suggest that while legal protections may be extended through cohabitation, the symbolic and cultural weight of marriage ceremonies continues to exert influence.
This tendency is reinforced by perceptions of live-in relationships. Out of the 93 respondents, a large number of respondents viewed live-in relationships as “somewhat acceptable alternatives” to marriage, but few believed live-in could fully replace formal unions. Concerns ranged from the lack of social recognition to uncertainty about inheritance and legitimacy, to the deeply ingrained societal view of marriage as a life milestone. Even among those open to cohabitation, many indicated that it was only a temporary arrangement preceding eventual marriage.
Therefore, while the law may offer flexibility by presuming marriage after long cohabitation, the younger demographic’s choices reveal that formal unions retain strong appeal. This also indicates that marriage is not only about legal security but also about social acceptance and cultural belonging, which cohabitation cannot fully replicate.
Can non-marital cohabitation ever replace a formal marriage?
The survey responses strongly hinted towards the inference that non-marital cohabitation, despite gaining recognition, cannot fully displace the institution of marriage in India. When asked directly why live-in relationships cannot replace formal marriage, participants consistently pointed to “society,” “family expectations,” and the enduring value of cultural rituals. Some also expressed concerns over the limited legal recognition of cohabitation, particularly in matters of inheritance and social legitimacy of children. These concerns reveal that marriage continues to be perceived as offering a more complete framework of legal certainty and social acceptance.
Interestingly enough, even the individuals who expressed comfort with cohabitation only perceived it as conditional and temporary. The majority of the participants only supported it as a “trial period” before marriage and not as a standalone alternative to marriage. This again reinforces the perception that while cohabitation may complement the institution of marriage, it is highly unlikely to evolve into a replacement. The younger generation thus imagines cohabitation not as an endpoint but merely a part of the broader goal of a formalised union.
The cultural weight of marriage also remains a decisive factor. For many, marriage is not merely a private choice, rather it is a form of social capital which confers legitimacy in kinship networks, community recognition, and intergenerational continuity. Cohabitation, despite legal presumptions, does not carry the same symbolic value. Hence, even though cohabitation provides flexibility and modernity towards individual choices, the institution of marriage remains deeply embedded in the social fabric.
Taking all this together, the data suggests that non-marital cohabitation may evolve in acceptance and practice, but its role will in all likelihood remain supplementary to marriage rather than substitutive. It merely operates as an intermediate arrangement that modern youth use to navigate between personal autonomy and traditional expectations, without undermining the dominant and cultural primacy of marriage.
Conclusion
The contextual examination of cohabitation as a presumed marriage as against formal marriage reveals a dynamic interplay between legal advancement and cultural continuity within India. While judicial recognition of long-term cohabitation under Section 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and landmark judgments such as the Badri Prasad and Indra Sarma judgments, all coupled together reflect an important step towards inclusivity. The institution of marriage continues to enjoy primacy as the cultural, legal, and social cornerstone of Indian society. The survey findings further confirm that the younger generations may experiment with cohabitation, often as a mere trial period/transitional stage, but ultimately, they do prescribe greater value to the legitimacy and social capital which is conferred to a formal union by way of marriage ceremonies.
Meanwhile, the continuing disparities in rights and protections between cohabiting and married couples raise serious fairness concerns. Even the children born out of such union, though recognised as legitimate in the eyes of law, continue to face restrictions in matters of inheritance. Women in live-in relationships, while safeguarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, remain socially vulnerable due to the stigma as well as the lack of full parity with their married counterparts. These asymmetries point to the need for reform.
A more equalised legal system would redress such lapses in numerous ways. Firstly, by extending succession and property rights to partners as well as children of long-term cohabiting couples. Secondly, by creating a uniform recognition of live-in relationships across personal laws thereby minimizing the tensions between secular presumptions and religious requirements. Lastly, by enhancing awareness through policy and educational initiatives to gradually dismantle the stigma associated with non-marital unions. Such reforms would not displace marriage but rather strengthen the protection of vulnerable individuals within India’s plural legal framework.
Ultimately, cohabitation in India is unlikely to replace marriage; instead, it functions as a complementary arrangement shaped by modern individual choice but constrained by enduring cultural expectations. The challenge for the law is to evolve in a manner that balances social legitimacy with personal autonomy. By providing equal safeguards without erasing the institution of marriage, Indian family law can move closer to realizing constitutional promises of dignity, equality, and freedom of choice in intimate relationships.
The conversation on cohabitation vs. marriage is far from over, and your perspective matters.
Drop your thoughts, experiences, or questions in the comment section below.
Continue your legal learning journey with more insightful content at Legaljourney.in.
Join us on Telegram for regular updates!
Follow us on YouTube for detailed video explanation on Constitutional Law.
Together, let’s make legal awareness accessible to all.
End Notes
[1] Sribala Vadlapatla, Focus on edu & future, for T women marriage can wait, The Times of India (May 4, 2025), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/focus-on-edu-future-for-t-women-marriage-can-wait/articleshow/120858298.cms.
[2] Mehak Malhotra, The changing marriage playbook for Indians in their 30s, India Today (September 9, 2025), https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/relationship/story/arranged-yet-open-are-indians-in-their-30s-reshaping-marriage-norms-2783783-2025-09-08.
[3] S. Nambi, Marriage, Mental Health and the Indian Legislation, 47 Indian J. Psychiatry 3 (2005).
[4] K. M. Kapadia, Marriage and Family in India 167 (3rd ed. 1966)
[5] Rishika Agarwal, Marriage Laws with Respect to Manusmriti, 9 (5) IJCRT a876, (2021).
[6] Malavika Rajkotia, Intimacy Undone: Marriage, Divorce and Family Law in India 17 (Speaking Tiger Publishing Pvt Ltd. 2017).
[7] Shyam Prakash Pandey, Changing Dimensions of Institutions of Marriage in India: A Socio-Legal Evaluation, 4 Int'l J. L. Mgmt. & Humanities 58, 63 (2021).
[8] Rajkotia, supra note 6, at 341
[9] Mridula Kulkarni, Construction of the Scale to Measure the Attitude Towards Cohabitation Among Young Adults, 9(1) Int. J. Novel Res. Devel. a81, a82–a83 (2024).
[10] Special Marriage Act, § 12(2), No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India).
[11] Special Marriage Act, § 16 and 18, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India).
[12] Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 754.
[13] Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy, AIR 1927 PC 185.
[14] Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 1557.
[15] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, § 119, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023.
[16] Kumud Mehra et. al., A Need For Legal Recognition Of Live-In Relationships In India: An Empirical Study, 6 J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 6469, 6469–6470 (2022).
[17] Mohd. Amin v. Vakil Ahmad, AIR 1952 SC 358
[18] (“any sexual intercourse outside the marriage which stands for both adultery and fornication")
[19] Wazida Rahman, Live-In-Relationship And Personal Laws: A Contemporary Study, 3 NUJS J. Regul. Stud. 29, 34 (2018).
[20] Badri supra note 14.
[21] Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, AIR 2010 SC 2933.
(addressing evidentiary standards for proving legitimacy of children in inheritance disputes where long-term cohabitation existed but ceremonial marriage was contested through examination of official records and documentary evidence).
[22] Indra Sarma v. V. K. V. Sarma, AIR 2014 SC 309.
[23] (A rebuttable presumption is a legal assumption that a fact is true unless proven otherwise with sufficient evidence)
[24] Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, AIR 2010 SC 2685.
[25] Srimati Basu & Lucinda Ramberg, Conjugality Unbound: Sexual Economies, State Regulation and the Marital Form in India 6 (Women Unlimited 2015).
[26] supra note 9; supra note 16.
[27] Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Impact of Live-in Relationships on Marriage and Family Institutions: A Societal Perspective, 7 Int. J. Law Manag. Humanities 3392 (2024).
[28] Vinita Ghosh, Perception of Youth Towards Live-In Relationships in India, 9 Int. J. Ind. Psychol. 2117 (2021).
[29] Anamika Viswanathan & Myrrene V Bhagwagar, The Impact of Cohabiting Couples in India, 11 J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. c281, c283 (2024).
[30] Indira Jaising, Bringing Rights Home: Review of the Campaign for a Law on Domestic Violence, in Women and Law: Critical Feminist Perspectives 1, 26 (Kalpana Kannabiran ed., Sage Law 2002).
[31] Sandeep, Comprehensive Study of Marriage and Divorce Law in India, 6 Int. J. Enh. Res. Manag. Comput. Appl. 53, 57 (2017).
[32] Mallarika Sinha Roy, Intimate Spaces of Struggle: Rethinking Family and Marriage in Contemporary India, in 2 Routledge Handbook of Contemporary India 283, 289 (Knut A. Jacobsen ed., Routledge 2016).
[33] Sabah Gurmat, Live-in couples in small town India have it rough, The Print (January 16, 2025), https://theprint.in/ground-reports/live-in-couples-in-small-town-india-have-it-rough-varanasi-to-vadodara-aligarh-to-alwar/2022822/.
[34] Rajkotia, supra note 6, at 328.