Cohabitation

Trends And Patterns, Reasons For Cohabitation,

Meanings Of Cohabitation, Consequences Of
Cohabitation, Conclusion

Cohabitation, sometimes called consensual union or de facto marriage, refers to

unmarried heterosexual couples living together in an intimate relationship.
Cohabitation as such is not a new phenomenon. It has, however, developed into
a novel family form in contrast with conventional marriage. Part of this change
is associated with the absolute rise in cohabitational relationships. Since the
1970s, many countries, particularly those in North America and Europe, have
experienced rapid growth in their cohabitation rates. Although these numbers
generally remain small relative to families composed of married couples, the
absolute numbers of cohabiting couples have increased dramatically.
Cohabitation was obscure and even taboo throughout the nineteenth century and
until the 1970s. Nonmarital unions have become common because the meaning
of the family has been altered by individualistic social values that have
progressively matured since the late 1940s. As postwar trends illustrate,
marriage is no longer the sanctified, permanent institution it once was. The
proliferation of divorce, remarriage, stepfamilies, and single parenthood has
transformed the institution of the family. With these structural changes, attitudes
toward nonmarital unions have become increasingly permissive.

Because cohabitation involves a shared household between intimate partners, it

has characteristics in common with marriage. Similarities include pooled
economic resources, a gender division of labor in the household, and sexual
exclusivity. However, even though the day-to-day interaction between
cohabiting couples parallels that of married couples in several ways, important
distinctions remain. While some argue that cohabitation has become a variant of
marriage, the available evidence does not support this position. Kingsley Davis
(1985) points out that if cohabitation were simply a variant of marriage then its
increased prevalence vis-à-vis marriage would lack significance. Sociologists
treat cohabitation as a distinct occurrence not just because it has displaced
marriage, but also because it represents a structural change in family
relationships.

Cohabitational relationships are distinct from marital ones in several crucial

ways. Although these differences have become less pronounced with the
increase in cohabitation (and could thus eventually vanish), the following
characteristics define the essential boundaries between cohabitation and
marriage.

1. Age. People in cohabitational relationships tend to be younger than

people in marital relationships. This supports the argument that
cohabitation is often an antecedent to marriage. The majority of
cohabitational relationships dissolve because the couples involved get
married;
2. Fertility. Children are less likely to be born into cohabitational
relationships than they are into marital relationships;
3. Stability. Cohabitational relationships are short-lived compared to marital
relationships. In Canada, only about 12 percent of cohabitations are
expected to last ten years. By comparison, 90 percent of first marriages
are expected to last this long (Wu 2000). The majority of cohabitational
relationships terminate within three years. Although many of these
relationships end because of marriage, the lack of longevity in
cohabitations as such illustrates that these relationships have yet to
develop into a normative variant of marriage;
4. Social acceptance. Even with its numerical growth and spread throughout
society, cohabitation is not as socially acceptable as marriage.
Cohabitation is socially tolerated in part because it is expected that
cohabiting partners will eventually become married. Indeed, according to
U.S. data, about three-quarters of never married cohabitors had definite
plans for marriage or believed they would eventually marry their partner
(Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin 1991). The youthful profile of cohabitation
shows that marriage is still the preferred choice of union for most
couples. If cohabitation were a variant of marriage, it would have a larger
prevalence in older cohorts. Although many people have chosen to delay
marriage, most have not rejected it completely. A major reason
cohabitations have lower fertility than marriage is because couples tend to
abandon cohabitation when children are in the immediate future
 (Manning and Smock 1995). In most countries, marriage is perceived as
the most secure and legitimate union when children are involved;
5. State recognition. Unlike marriage, cohabitation is not sanctioned by the
state, and persons in nonmarital unions do not necessarily acquire specific
legal rights and obligations through their union. Without a formal
ceremony and legal documentation, a couple is not married even if they
have lived together for many years. However, after a set period of time
(usually one or two years), cohabiting couples are recognized
as common-law partners in some countries. In such instances, common-
law partners can have similar rights and obligations as they would in a
legal marriage. Common-law marriage can parallel legal marriage in
terms of child support and custody, spousal maintenance, income tax,
unemployment insurance, medical and dental benefits, and pensions. The
degree to which cohabitors are treated like legally married couples
usually corresponds to the degree nonmarital unions are socially
accepted. But even where cohabitors do have rights, these are often
unknown to cohabitors and more complicated to exercise than they are
for married persons. In many cases, the rights that cohabiting couples
possess have been established by court decisions rather than by state law,
as they are for married couples. Perhaps the most crucial legal distinction
between these unions is the absence of shared property rights in common-
law relationships. Married couples acquire shared property rights upon
establishing their union, but cohabiting couples must do so through the
courts. In sum, no uniform and guaranteed set of rights applies to
cohabitation. This deficiency shows that in most countries, cohabitation is
not yet perceived as a legitimate variant to marriage from the perspective
of the state.

cohabitation

The past few decades have brought dramatic changes in the residential
arrangements of romantically involved unmarried adults. Indeed, as sexual activity
has become uncoupled from marriage, growing numbers of young couples have
begun sharing a home and a bed without the legal sanction of marriage.
Cohabitation, as this type of living arrangement is commonly known, has become a
normative part of the adult life course.
Determining the prevalence of cohabitation is a challenging task. Given the nature of
today’s dating and mating patterns, measuring trends in cohabitation is a highly
subjective undertaking. Legal marriages are officially recorded via state licenses; no
such formality is imposed on cohabiting couples. The process of entering into
cohabiting unions can be rather indeterminate. Some couples may first spend a night
or two together, but then find themselves staying overnight several times a week
before ultimately acknowledging that they ‘‘live together.’’ During this process,
individuals may retain their separate addresses, even if they rarely sleep there, yet
remain unwilling to tell family and friends that they cohabit. Other romantic couples
proceed quickly and quite consciously into coresidential relationships, but without
specific plans to marry. For others, cohabitation is a stepping stone to marriage – a
way to test for compatibility or cement their relationship.

The indeterminacy of this process is reflected in how surveys attempt to capture the
cohabiting population; there is no consistent definition of what cohabitation entails.
Whereas some studies ask if a partner sleeps there most of the time, others rely on
a more subjective measure and allow respondents to determine if they are
cohabiting. Still other surveys rely on information from a household roster and
include partners only if they are there at least half the time or more. The US Census
Bureau enabled the identification of household members as ‘‘unmarried partner’’ in
the 1990 and 2000 Census. Measures of cohabitation may therefore include those
who share a home, along with those who reside together part time, or who are
together every night but maintain separate residences. Conflating these definitions is
most problematic

for minority populations, who are most likely to be part time cohabitors. The
imprecise nature of how cohabitation is defined may therefore exaggerate or
understate its prevalence as a living arrangement, or hide variations across groups.

While living together without being married is far from being a new phenomenon, it
first drew serious attention in the 1970s and has since been a topic of great interest.
It has become increasingly prevalent over the past three decades. In the US, initial
estimates from the Current Population Survey (CPS) of 1980 revealed that
approximately 1.6 million unmarried couples were cohabiting, more than triple the
number that did so in 1970. By 1990 the number of cohabiting couples had grown by
another 80 percent, to almost 2.9 million couples. A total of 4.9 million households
consisted of heterosexual cohabiting couples in 2000. Despite the dramatic increase
in cohabiting couples, at any one point in time the proportion of all co residential
couples who are unmarried is rather small. Cohabitors accounted for only 8.4
percent of all couple households in the 2000 census. Other western countries have
also seen rapid growth in the numbers of people cohabiting.

Although cohabitors account for only a small fraction of all households, experience
with living together outside of marriage is far more prevalent and has increased
dramatically. In fact, cohabitation has become a normative experience. In the late
1980s one third of all women between the ages of 19 and 44 in the US had ever
cohabited in their lives; by 1995, 45 percent of similarly aged women had done so.
By 2002 well over half of all women ages 19 to 44 (57 percent) affirmed that they
had lived with a romantic partner. Cohabitation remains most common among those
in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties. Almost half of all American women aged 30 to 34
(49 percent) in 1995 had lived at some point with a romantic partner without being
married, and by 2002 this figure had risen to 62 percent. Living together has also
become the modal pathway preceding marriage. Again relying on information from
the

1995 NSFG, Raley (2000) found that over half of all women born between 1965 and
1969 (55 percent) had lived with their partner prior to marriage. Marriage records in
Great Britain and other European countries also indicate that the large majority of
people now cohabit prior to marrying. Furthermore, considerable numbers of adults
have cohabited without subsequently marrying their partner.

Despite its increased popularity, cohabitation is still more commonplace among

particular subgroups. Living together historically served as the ‘‘poor man’s’’
marriage; even today, the least educated continue to lead the growth in cohabitation.
In the US over half of women with less than 12 years of schooling had ever lived with
a romantic partner as of 1995, compared to about 37 percent among women with at
least a Bachelor’s degree. Nonetheless, cohabitation has become common even
among college graduates. By 2002, 47 percent of women who were college
graduates had lived with a partner at some point, compared with 62 per cent for
women aged 19 to 44 who were high school graduates and 68 percent for those with
less than 12 years of schooling. Racial differences in living together have narrowed
far more than have educational disparities. Whereas cohabitation used to be more
widespread among African Americans, recent increases in the proportion of people
cohabiting have been greater among non-Hispanic whites. Both groups were more
likely to cohabit than Hispanic women of similar ages in 1995. Nonetheless, given
distinctive differences in marriage rates across these racial groups in the US, these
results suggest that the role served by cohabitation may increasingly differ by race.
Marriage rates are considerably lower among African Americans than for either
whites or Hispanics. For blacks, then, living together may serve as a marriage
alternative, whereas for whites it is still more likely to be a precursor to marriage.
Living together has also been more prevalent among the previously married than the
never married. In fact, it is increasingly replacing remarriage, even among those with
children.

Cohabitation differs rather dramatically in its prevalence, as well as its role in

childbearing, in Canada and Western Europe. In countries that have the highest
proportions of cohabiting unions – Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and France –
family law often views married and cohabiting couples similarly. In these countries,
most non marital births are to cohabiting couples, in contrast to the US where greater
shares of such births are to women living without a partner. But there is considerable
variation in the prevalence of cohabitation in Europe, as demonstrated in the
research of Kiernan (2004a, b) and Heuveline and Timberlake (2004). Countries
such as the UK, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and Belgium have intermediate
levels of cohabitation, and the shares cohabiting in most Catholic countries (Italy,
Spain, and Ireland), while substantial, are even lower. The extent to which children
are born into cohabiting unions or live with cohabiting parents also fluctuates widely,
though in most of the Northern and Western European countries the shares of
cohabiting couples living with children are similar to those in the US.
Most cohabiting unions are of relatively short duration, lasting on average only a year
or two. A small fraction continue to cohabit indefinitely or represent an alternative to
marriage. In the US roughly half of all cohabiting unions end within the first year. In
contrast, only about 1 in 10 lasts 5 or more years. Because cohabiting appears to be
such a transitory arrangement, many argue that it is not usually an alternative to or a
substitute for marriage. Yet the purpose of cohabitation appears to be changing over
time. As living together has become more prevalent it has become less likely to
serve as a staging ground for marriage. Among those who entered cohabiting unions
in the early 1980s, about 60 percent eventually married. The share of those entering
cohabiting unions in the 1990s that subsequently married declined to about 53
percent (Bumpass & Lu 2000). Using more recent data from the NLSY for young
women for the years 1979 through 2000, Lichter et al. (2006) found that cohabiting
unions were more likely to end in dissolution than in marriage.

One possible explanation for this change comes from new evidence that young
adults often do not have explicit plans to marry at the time they decide to cohabit.
Sassler (2004), in a qualitative study of New York cohabitors, reported that marriage
was not discussed seriously prior to entering into shared living arrangements, and in
fact was generally not raised in any serious fashion until after a considerable length
of time. This finding is being replicated in other qualitative studies con ducted on a
wider array of social classes in various locations in the US. A growing body of
research is reporting that rather than an explicit testing ground for marriage, many
cohabitors live together for financial reasons or because it is more convenient. As
cohabitation becomes normative, it increasingly appears to serve as an alternative to
being single.

Despite common beliefs that living together is a good way to assess compatibility for
marriage, couples that lived together prior to marriage have elevated rates of marital
dissolution. Cohabitation therefore does not appear to reduce subsequent divorce by
winnowing out the least stable couples from marriage. However, the association
between cohabitation and relationship disruption has not been firmly established.
Using data from the 1987 National Survey of Families and Households, Schoen and
Owens (1991) reported finding no connection between premarital cohabitation and
subsequent divorce among women born in the early 1960s, though cohabitors from
earlier birth cohorts did have a higher likelihood of experiencing a divorce. It remains
unclear whether the relationship between cohabitation and divorce has weakened or
strengthened among more recent cohorts of cohabiting women. The relation
between repeat cohabitation and subsequent union dissolution is more clear cut.
Those who have lived with multiple partners in informal living arrangements do
experience increased relationship instability.

As mentioned above, those who choose to live together tend to be different from
adults who marry without first cohabiting, in that they tend to have lower levels of
education, more unstable employment histories, and less traditional orientations
towards the family. Another way in which cohabiting couples differ from those who
are married is in their divergent backgrounds. For example, cohabiting couples are
more likely to consist of partners from different racial backgrounds than are married
couples, suggesting that living together is more acceptable than is marriage for
interracial partnerships. Cohabitation is also less selective than is marriage with
respect to education (Blackwell & Lichter 2000). Finally, several factors increase the
likelihood of cohabiting instead of entering into marriage, further differentiating the
two groups. Recent work by Qian and colleagues (2005) finds that women who
experience non marital births, for example, are substantially more likely to enter into
cohabiting situations than marriage. Less is known about men who enter into
cohabiting unions, and how they differ from those who marry, though recent research
using data from the Fragile Families study shows that men who have fathered
children with multiple partners, and who therefore may have child support obligations
that extend across several families, are less likely to wed their current partner with
whom they share a child. In general, cohabiting partners tend to differ more than
married couples on a range of dimensions; further research is required to determine
the effect that such differences may have on the quality of their match.

Evidence on the domestic labor performed by cohabitors indicates that their patterns
are in many ways similar to married couples. Cohabiting men do about as much
domestic labor as do married men. While cohabiting women spend far less time on
domestic labor than married women, they continue to do more than cohabiting men
do (Shelton & John 1993). Furthermore, in a study of transitions in the domestic
labor of single adults, Gupta (1999) reports that single women who move into
cohabiting unions increase the amount of domestic labor they perform, while
cohabiting men do not. These results suggest that cohabiting couples ‘‘do gender’’ in
ways that are quite similar to married couples.

A substantial proportion of cohabiting couples reside with children. Some of these

children are the result of previous marriages or relationships. But cohabitors are
increasingly bearing children without marrying. In the early 1980s in the US, for
example, an estimated 29 percent of all births to single mothers were to cohabiting
women; by the early 1990s, 39 percent of all non-marital births were to cohabiting
women, and estimates from the final years of the twentieth century suggest that
births to cohabiting couples accounted for close to half of all births to single women
in cities of over 200,000 persons (Bumpass & Lu 2000; Sigle Rushton & McLanahan
2002). In Britain, some 60 percent of all unmarried mothers are cohabiting at the
time of their child’s birth. Living together has largely replaced what used to be
referred to as ‘‘shotgun’’ weddings, as single women who become pregnant are now
just as likely to move in with their partners as they are to marry (Manning 1993;
Raley 2001). These developments provide additional fuel to those worried about the
effects that the increasing prevalence of cohabitation is having on marital unions.

While an increasing proportion of children are born into cohabiting families, a

substantial number of children will spend time in cohabiting families following the
divorce or breakup of their parents’ relationships. As a result, a rising proportion of
cohabitors are residing with children under the age of 15, both biological children and
those that might be considered ‘‘stepchildren.’’ The proportions have increased from
over a quarter of all cohabitors in 1980 to over 40 percent by 2000 (Fields & Casper
2001). Furthermore, children’s likelihood of living with a cohabiting parent is even
greater. Although estimates vary somewhat, Graefe and Lichter (1999) report, using
data from the NLSY, that over a quarter (26 per cent) of children born prior to 1992
could expect to live with a cohabiting mother some time by age 14, while Heuveline
and Timber lake (2004) found that about one third of American children can expect
to live with a cohabiting parent.
Since cohabiting unions are less stable than marriages, a growing body of evidence
has sought to document how children fare if they spend time with a cohabiting parent
(or parents). While we still do not conclusively know whether spending time in a
cohabiting family rather than with married parents or an unmarried parent is more or
less beneficial to children, cohabiting families do break up more often than do
married ones. The preliminary evidence suggests that spending time in cohabiting
families can have detrimental effects for children, often because of the transient
nature of the relationship. In other words, children who spend time with a cohabiting
parent may fare worse developmentally than children raised in stable two parent
families, and even children raised by single parents who do not cohabit, largely
because cohabiting parents tend to experience multiple transitions in and out of
relationships. It is these multiple transitions that are detrimental to children (Brown
2004).

The dramatic increase in cohabitation has stimulated a great deal of research

exploring who cohabitors are, suggesting what role cohabitation serves in the union
formation process, and assessing the impact of cohabitation for the wellbeing of
adults and children. Religious leaders and policymakers are increasingly questioning
the impact that living together has on marriage and parenting. The growing
acceptance of cohabitation among the general population, in conjunction with its
increasing prevalence as a staging ground for parenting, presents new challenges to
those concerned about growing inequality across family types. Yet the role
cohabitation will play in patterns of family formation in the US and other western
countries in the future is still unknown, and will require further study of its impact on
individuals and families in differing circumstances and life course stages, how its
meaning changes over time, and the impact that living together has on the institution
of marriage.

A live-in relationship

India has witnessed a drastic change in the way the present generation perceive their
relationships. The taboo that used to haunt partners in live-in relationships has also started to
fade away with society opening up about the idea of pre-marital sex and live-in relationships.

This improved mindset is a result of freedom, privacy, profession, education and also
globalisation. Moreover, for most of us – it is not an escape from responsibilities but a way to
understand our partner and to check if at all we are compatibility.

A live-in relationship not only gives the couple an opportunity to know the partner without
having to engage into a legally binding relationship but also excludes the chaos of family
drama and lengthy court procedures in case the couple decides to break up.

It involves continuous cohabitation between the partners without any responsibilities or

obligations towards one another. There is no law tying them together, and consequently,
either of the partners can walk out of the relationship, as and when they want.

How is live-in defined under Indian Law?

The Supreme Court in Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma defined live-in relationships in five
distinct ways- A domestic cohabitation between an adult unmarried male and an adult
unmarried female. This is the simplest kind of relationship.

A domestic cohabitation between a married man and an adult unmarried woman (entered
mutually). A domestic cohabitation between an adult unmarried man and a married woman
(entered mutually).

These two are the most complex grey areas of acknowledging live-in relationship.
Furthermore, the second type of relationship mentioned is adultery which is punishable under
Indian Penal Code.

A domestic cohabitation between an unmarried adult female and a married male entered
unknowingly is punishable under Indian Penal Code as well. A domestic cohabitation
between two homosexual partners, which cannot lead to a marital relationship in India as no
marital laws against homosexuality are defined yet.

Legal Status of Live-in

In most western countries there is a broader understanding of the idea of a couple in a

relationship, which is evident in their legal recognition of prenuptial agreements, civil and
domestic union of couples etc. However, it is not the same in India.

The Apex Court in so many of its judgments has stated that if a man and a woman “lived like
husband and wife” in a long-term relationship and even had children, the judiciary would
presume that the two were married and same laws would be applicable.

In another instance, the Apex court even declared that for a man and a woman in love to live
together is part of the right to life and not a “criminal offence”. Therefore, live-in
relationships are legal in India.

Difference between marriage and live-in relationship

Marriage:

The institution of marriage is a socially and ritually accepted union and a contract between
spouses that institutes rights and legal obligations towards each other. In light of the diverse
culture in India, separate laws have been formulated which lay down the procedure and
guidelines for proper execution of marriages in various religions. Marriage laws have been
created to provide remedies for disputes arising out of marriage in different religions.
In addition to the law of maintenance under personal laws, Section-125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure also provides for maintenance if the wife is cannot maintain herself.
Women can also seek extra-maintenance apart from the maintenance received by her under
any other law as per Section- 20 (1) (d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act.

Live-in relationship:

There is no law binding the partners together, and subsequently, either of the partners can
walk out of the relationship, as and when they wish to do so.

There is no legal definition of live-in relationship, and therefore, the legal status of such type
of relations is also unconfirmed. The right to maintenance in a live-in relationship is decided
by the court by the Domestic Violence Act and the individual facts of the case.

Though the common man is still hesitant in accepting this kind of relationship, the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act provides for the protection and maintenance thereby
granting the right of alimony to an aggrieved live-in partner.

Protection against exploitation of women and children in live-in relationships

Maintenance of lady partner
The right of maintenance is available to wives under all personal laws in India. However,
none of the religions recognises and accept live-in relationships. Since no remedy is granted
to women involved in a live-in relationship, Indian Courts have widened the scope of
maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Therefore, Section- 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been provided to give a legal
right of maintenance to lady partners in or out of a marriage.

Domestic Violence

The Domestic Violence Act was enforced as an attempt to protect women from abusive
(physical, mental, verbal or economic) marital relationships. However, as per Section- 2 (f), it
not only applies to a married couple, but also to a ‘relationship in nature of marriage’.

Therefore, considering all this even the Supreme Court in a couple of cases has allowed live-
in relationships to be covered within the ambit of the law specified.

Children out of marriage

Partners living together for a long time may have kids together. However, live-in couples are
not allowed to adopt kids as per the Guidelines Governing the Adoption of Children as
notified by the Central Adoption Resource Authority. In case of dispute with respect to
custody of the child, you may also consult a Child Custody Lawyer.
Legitimacy and inheritance rights of children

Inheritance rights of children are mentioned in Section- 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, where
the legal status of legitimacy is provided even to illegitimate children (those born out of
marriage) for the sole purpose of inheritance. Therefore, inheritance rights have been granted
to children born out of a live-in relationship. These rights are available in both ancestral and
self-bought properties.

Custody and maintenance rights of children

The position on the maintenance rights of children out of marriage varies in personal
marriage laws. For instance, under the Hindu Law the father has to maintain the child,
whereas under the Muslim Law the father has been absolved of such an obligation.

However, under Section- 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, remedy is available for
children who are unable to claim maintenance under personal laws. Section- 125 provides a
legal right of maintenance to wives, children.

This article is on the emerging issue of live-in-relationship. The

concept of �Mitru Sambandh� is nothing but a concept of the
�Live-in-relationship� or �Living relationship�....
“Emerging Concept of Live-in-Relationships”
This article is on the emerging issue of live-in-relationship. The concept of ‘Mitru Sambandh’ is
nothing but a concept of the ‘Live-in-relationship’ or ‘Living relationship’. The concept of “Live-in
relationship” is a problem or not is debatable question. Generally speaking, in modern age
increasing concept of live-in relationship means a male and female staying together as a friend
without marriage. This is unstable form of family. Many people imagine that living together before
marriage resembles taking a car for a test drive. Live-in-relationships are not new in our society.
The only difference is that now people have become open about it. So, let us see the exact
meaning of live-in relationship.

Meaning of “Live-in- Relationship”

“It’s better to have a live-in relationship rather than having a divorced life!”
This is common and line favoring live-in relations in the world. Live in relationship are not new for
western countries but these days the concept is adjusting its roots in east also. The word live in
is controversial in many terms in eastern countries.

The legal definition of live in relationship is “an arrangement of living under which the couples
which are unmarried live together to conduct a long-going relationship similarly as in marriage.”

In some parts of world these types of relationships are valid but some countries are highly strict
for accepting the concept. It has been found that Younger generation is wider to accept the live in
relationships.

Mentality behind “Live-in- Relationship”

We know marriage is of two types ‘Arrange marriage and Love marriage’. After marriage, we
don’t know, whether it is successful or not? That’s why?

When arrangement of marriage is for two persons in love then why couples are leaning towards
the live-in relationships. This question can have multiple answers, but this have been found that
almost all the couples perusing a live-in relation are willing to get married someday. But before
that they want to spend some time with one another, for understanding each other and to figure
out their compatibility. Because they believe that if they found themselves incompatible after
marriage then they will have no choice other than compromising their life-styles.

Further, some couples believe that going for a weeding is just a waste of money, because they
think their love doesn’t need any paper certification or social drama. The reasons can be
numerous depending upon different mental set-ups.

Need of modern world

We people moves towards ‘Modernization. Today many traditional communities are heading up
in the world who opposes live-in relationships; they found it against their religious concerns and
social foundations. But it has to be understood that the emotional bindings and relationships can
never be pressed by power. Live-in concept is not a problem, it is just thinking. And it has to be
entertained rationally. If youth is getting more influenced with the concept, then ethical and legal
communities of world must take some necessary steps to keep the concept original and rational.
In spite of threatening people about live-in relationships, the need says to support and help the
couples who are living together, so that one day they go for some healthier and more social
relationship.

Provisions with regard to live-in-relationships

1) Position outside the India
The European countries are worst affected by ‘Live-in –relationship’. In most places, it is legal for
unmarried people to live together. The law introduced in 1999 in France makes provisions for
“civil solidarity pacts” allowing couples (even of same sex) to enter into a union and be entitled to
the same rights as married couples in such areas as income tax, inheritance, housing and social
welfare. Couples, who want to enter into such a relationship may sign up before a court clerk and
can revoke the contract unilaterally or by bilaterally with a simple declaration, made in writing,
which gives the partner three months’ notice.

Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines provides that when a man and a woman who are
capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in
equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be
governed by the rules on co-ownership.

2) Position within the India

India a country of cultural values and ritual ceremonies cannot afford to plunge into western
society. But since growing economy and people getting more and more aware, India finally has
to step ahead and walk with the rest of the world by legalizing Live-in relationship. A country like
India would allow its citizens to do that, but its fact. Further pre-marital sex and live-in partners,
the Supreme Court today opined that a man and woman living together without marriage cannot
be construed as an offence.

"When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence?
Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence," a three judge bench of Chief Justice K
G Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan observed. The court said even Lord ‘Krishna
and Radha’ lived together according to mythology. The apex court said there was no law which
prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex.

The apex court made the observation while reserving its judgement on a special leave petition
filed by noted south Indian actress Khusboo [S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC
600 (vide para 31)]seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly
endorsed pre-marital sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005.The judges grilled the
counsel for some of the complainants in the case and repeatedly stressed that the perceived
immoral activities cannot be branded as offence. The argument of the counsel was that her
comments allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex would adversely affect the minds of young people
leading to decay in moral values and country's ethos.

"Please tell us what is the offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life," the
apex court said apparently referring to Article 21 which granted right to life and liberty as a
Fundamental Right. The apex court further said the views expressed by Khusboo were personal.
"How does it concern you? We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an
offence? Under which provision of the law?" the bench asked the counsel. The apex court further
asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any girls eloped from their homes after
the said interview.

"How many homes have been affected can you tell us," the bench asked while enquiring whether
the complainants had daughters. When the response was in the negative, they shot back, "Then,
how are you adversely affected?"

Khusboo had approached the apex court after the Madras High Court in 2008 dismissed her plea
for quashing the criminal cases filed against her throughout Tamil Nadu.

Live-in relationships: Law-in-Perspective in India

The news spread like jungle fire in national media which is the decision of the Supreme Court
in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal [AIR 2011 SC 479] reflecting upon live-in relationships
becoming frequent in India, the Court has pointed out that no legal entitlements occur by such
relationship. While Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising has strongly objected to the gender
insensitive terminology employed in the decision, since the decision is here to stay, it is clear that
no maintenance is available to a concubine under law in India.

The Supreme Court was dealing with the claim of maintenance by a woman claiming to be a wife
in view of a live-in relationship for some year (about which we have already written noting a High
Court decision). The Court ruled that the concept of palimony which applied to such relationships
was not recognized in India and even though the Domestic Violence Act recognized live-in
relationship to some degree, not all such relationships were entitled for maintenance unless they
satisfied the conditions stipulated by the Court.

The Supreme Court also commented on such relationships described as common-law marriages
and the popularity of live-in marriages as a social phenomenon and even recognized by the
Parliament in terms of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

It seems to us that in the aforesaid Act of 2005 Parliament have taken notice of a new social
phenomenon which has emerged in our country known as live-in relationship. This new
relationship is still rare in our country, and is sometimes found in big urban cities in India, but it is
very common in North America and Europe. It has been commented upon by this Court in S.
Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 600 (vide para 31)

In Taylor vs. Fields (1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 186 the facts were that the plaintiff Taylor had a
relationship with a married man Leo. After Leo died Taylor sued his widow alleging breach of an
implied agreement to take care of Taylor financially and she claimed maintenance from the
estate of Leo. The Court of Appeals in California held that the relationship alleged by Taylor was
nothing more than that of a married man and his mistress. It was held that the alleged contract
rested on meretricious consideration and hence was invalid and unenforceable. The Court of
Appeals relied on the fact that Taylor did not live together with Leo but only occasionally spent
weekends with him. There was no sign of a stable and significant cohabitation between the two.

Supreme Court of India Clarify on Live-in relationships

Live-in relationships are living arrangement in which a man and a woman who are unmarried live
together like a husband and wife without the legal sanction called marriage. This is a concept
that has not gained social acceptance in India. When live-in relationships first came into the
open, it created a public outrage as it was considered violative of Indian culture and moral
values. Recent court judgments on live in relationships triggered public awareness and clarity
about this social issue.

Court Judgments: Children Born to Live-in Couple are not Illegitimate, Says SC
Court judgments have always given broad interpretation of law to protect the rights of women
and children. In live-in relationships, court judgments have considered it important to protect child
rights, in particular. In January 2008, a Supreme Court bench that was headed by Justice Arijit
Pasayat held that children who are born out of live-in relationships will not be considered
illegitimate. It was stated, “Law inclines in the interest of legitimacy and thumbs down ‘whoreson’
or ‘fruit of adultery.’”

In August 2010, the Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship that has existed for a long time
will be considered a marriage and that the children born to such a couple will not be illegitimate.
Justice P Sathasivam and Justice BS Chauhan of the Supreme Court passed this judgment and
it will have strong legal implications on disputes relating to the legitimacy of children who are
born to live-in partners.

Court Judgments: Domestic Violence Act Applicable to Live-in Relationships

Different court judgments have discussed on different disputes pertaining to live-in relationships.
Live-in relationships are now considered with marriage under a new Indian law pertaining to
domestic violence. The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are now extended to those
who are in live-in relationships as well. The amendments intend to protect the victims of domestic
abuse in live-in relationships. Section 2 (g) of the aforementioned Act provides that a relationship
between two individuals who live together or have lived together in the past is considered as a
domestic relationship. A woman who is in a live-in relationship can seek legal relief against her
partner in case of abuse and harassment. Further, the new law also protects Indian women who
are trapped in fraudulent or invalid marriages.

Final Legal Take Away Tip:-

A woman who is subject to any form of violence in a live-in relationship as well as a marital
relationship can file a complaint under section 498 A, IPC. She can also seek relief through
protection orders, compensation and interim orders citing sections 18 to 23 of the Domestic
Violence Act.

Conclusion:-
Lastly, I concluded that as society as change law is always changed. Further, I think that most of
couples go for live-in relations because they hate to be divorced, so why they will do the same
after marriage?

So, we all still the opposing communities are on the rock and it is uncertain that the live-in
concept is acceptable or not? But it is rooting up day by day and it needs ethical and legal
concerns.

Marriage: Meaning, Definition and Forms of Marriage!

Meaning:
Human beings like all mammals, mate, copulate and have children.
Like other creatures too, they rear families which survive until the
young become independent. However, humans, unlike animals,
mate and procreate in some ‘orderly way’ to which they have given
the name ‘marriage’.

Marriage is the basis of human society. Marriage forms society as

our social forms are reinforced by marriage. It is a basic institution
found in all human societies because no other union of men and
women meets all the requirements of mating, home-making, love
and personality development at the level of biological,
psychological, social, ethical and spiritual evolution.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Casual intercourse suffices for sexual satisfaction up to a point, but

it does not and cannot create marital or family life. Man and woman
constitute two parts of a complete whole—the one complementary
to the other with corresponding distinctions and relations. To
regard marriage as mere means of sexual satisfaction is to reduce it
to a sub-rational level of instinctive mating.

Moreover, sexual relations between a man and woman do not

constitute marriage in some parts of the world, such as Australia.
The institution of marriage makes human beings subjects of rights
and duties, which finds expression in the man-woman relationship.

As a legal institution, marriage confers various rights on those who

enter into it, for example, to be regarded as next-of-kin to one’s
partner. There is a bit difference of point of view between
anthropologists and sociologists about marriage.

Anthropologists like Lowie, Murdock and Westermark emphasized

on social sanction in the union and how it is accomplished by
different rituals and ceremonies; sociologists like Bowman, Baber
and Burgess, on the other hand, view it as a system of roles and as
involving primary relationships.

Defining Marriage:
In almost all societies, marriage is understood as a legally and
socially recognized sexual relationship, always between a man and
woman (or more than one woman or one man) and usually with
other restrictions of race, ethnicity, religion, caste, etc., implicitly
specified. Depending on the society, marriage may require religious
or civil sanction (or both), although some couples may be
considered married simply by living together for a prescribed
period.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Westermarck (1891) defines marriage ‘as a relation of one or more

men to one or more women, which is recognized by custom or law,
and involves rights and duties both in the case of the parties
entering the union and in the case of children born of it’.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (1994) defines it as,

‘Marriage is traditionally conceived to be legally recognized
relationship, between an adult male and female, that carries certain
rights and obligations.’ Giddens (1997) states, ‘Marriage can be
defined as a socially recognized relationship and approved sexual
union between an adult male and female, that carries certain rights
and obligations.’

In the above definitions it is stipulated that marriage is a

relationship between adult members but there are societies like
India where child marriages are also allowed by the custom of the
society, though it is banned by law. Not only this, even in so-called
modern societies likes Britain where age at marriage is falling
dramatically, adolescent marriages are on the rise.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

Marriage bond not only connects two adult individuals but also a
wider range of kin people. Parents, brothers, sisters and other
relatives of one partner become relatives of other partner through
marriage. Many new statuses and roles, such as mother-in-law,
daughter-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, etc., come into
existence after marriage.

Although in most societies marriage is defined in heterosexual

terms (between male and female), marriage involving partners of
the same sex is not unknown and is becoming increasingly
acceptable in some so-called modern societies. According to
Adrienne Rich heterosexuality is not so much the natural form of
sexual preference but is imposed upon individuals by social
constraints. In many Western countries and America, movements
by homosexuals have started to get legalize their marriages.

Forms of Marriage:
Every society has certain forms of pairing arrangements to which
we call marriage but remaining single or pairing without marriage
(living together) is fast emerging as an acceptable form of lifestyle in
the modem world. The trend towards maintaining an unmarried
lifestyle is related to the growing economic independence of young
people.

Singleness is an attractive option for those who do not want to limit

their sexual intimacy to one lifetime partner or have the burden of
children over the past 50 years, living alone has become one of the
most rapidly increasing social trends. The single life—for both men
and women—is not viewed as a social taboo anymore.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Eric Klinenberg, professor of sociology at New York University, in

his recently published book Going Solo (2012) revealed that there is
a fascinating rise in the numbers of ‘singletons’ (people who live
alone). Such people regard solitary living as a sign of accom-
plishment.

This is appealing to millions of people around the world. India,

along with China and Brazil, has recorded the fastest growth of
single-person households. This change has affected families,
communities, cities and personal lives.

The main forms of marriage are:

1. Monogamy:
It is a form of marriage in which one man is married to one woman
at a time. It allows one wife to have one husband till death and only
divorce separates them apart. This form of marriage is the only
universally recognized form and is the predominant even in
societies where other forms exist.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In Western countries and the United States, an increasing number

of married people end their relationship with one spouse (leading to
subsequent divorce) and remarry another. This pattern of marrying
is called serial monogamy. It means a person is allowed to have
several spouses in his or her life at a time.
2. Polygamy:
Some cultures allow an individual to have more than one spouse at
the same time. Having more than one marriage partner at a time is
known as polygamy. It was practised in most of the societies of the
world but now the trend is towards monogamy. However, as
anthropologist George Murdock (1959) found, 80 per cent of
societies had some type of polygamy.

There are three basic forms of polygamy:

(a) Polygyny:
It refers to plurality of wives or having more than one wife at the
same time. In many societies, having several wives is a mark of
prestige, distinction and status. It is very common among Muslims
in Africa and in Middle East and Asia.

(b) Polyandry:
It is a type of marriage in which a woman can have several
husbands (plurality of husbands) or two or more husbands
simultaneously. It is very rare form of marriage. Wherever it is
practised, the co-husbands are usually brothers, either blood
brothers or clan brothers and are of the same generation.

It is known as adelphic or fractural polyandry. The Todas (South

India) and Khasa (North India) are the famous examples of
polyandry. One motive in this case would be the maintenance of
land and property within one family.

(c) Group Marriage:

It is one more type of polygamy, in which several or many men
marry to several or many women. It is practised in some indigenous
societies.
Monogamy, the union between two individuals, is the most common form of
marriage. While monogamy traditionally referred to the union of one man and one
woman, there are some countries that recognize same-sex unions. As of early 2015,
The Netherlands, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland,
Argentina, Denmark, Brazil, France, Uruguay, New Zealand, the United Kingdom,
Luxembourg, and Finland legally allow same-sex marriage. In other countries, the
debate continues over whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage or guarantee
rights to homosexuals. For instance, certain states in Mexico allow same-sex
marriage, but not the entire nation. Serial monogamy, where an individual has
multiple spouses over their lifetime, but only one at a time, is quite common in
industrial societies.

Polygamy, the union between three or more individuals is the second most common
form of marriage. Generally when polygamy is mentioned by the media, a marriage
between a man and multiple women is being referenced; however, the term is being
misused. Polygyny is the correct term for a marriage between a man and multiple
women. Polyandry refers to a marriage between a woman and multiple men.
Polyandry mostly occurs between a woman and brothers, a system referred to
as fraternal polyandry. One reason that polyandry might be the preferred marriage
pattern for a group is if there is a shortage of women or land is scarce. For instance,
the Nyinba of Nepal practice fraternal polyandry because there is not enough land to
divide between brothers and the high mortality rate of female child and infant
mortality. Male children are preferred, therefore are better cared for then female
offspring (Bonvillain 2010: 218-219).

Polygyny is more common than polyandry. It is generally found in societies where

rapid population growth is beneficial to the survival of the group, such as frontier and
warrior societies, or where the ratio of women to men is high. Men with multiple
wives and many children usually have higher status within the group because they
have demonstrated that they can afford to support a large family. Men may also
marry several women to help increase his wealth as he will then have more hands
helping to bring in resources to the family. Many groups across the globe have or do
practice polygyny, e.g., G/wi, Australian Aborigines, Turkana, Samburu, and the
Tswana.

A question that anthropologists asked was what are the benefits of multiple
spouses? What they found were several possible benefits:

 increased social status

 a new set of affines (in-laws) gives individuals more people for help w/trade,
political alliances, support
 a larger labor force
  lessens the burden of work because it distributed among several women
 better chance children are provided for

Group marriage is a rare form of marriage where several males are married
simultaneously to several females. This form of marriage was once practiced by the
Toda; however, it is no longer known in any extant society.

There are a few other types of marriage. A symbolic marriage is one that does not
establish economic or social ties, e.g., a Catholic nun marrying Jesus Christ. Fixed-
term marriages are temporary marriages that are entered into for a fixed period of
time. Once the time period is ended, the parties go their separate ways. There may
be a financial gain for the woman, however there are no social ties once the
marriage has ended. Fixed-term marriages legitimize sexual relationships for
individuals whose culture may forbid sexual relationships outside of marriage, e.g.,
soldiers during times of war or students attending college in a foreign country.

Some cultures have developed special rules for marriage if a married family member
dies. The levirate obliges a man to marry his deceased brother’s wife; e.g.,
Orthodox Judaism (although rarely practiced today, the widow must perform the
chalitzah ceremony before she can remarry). The brother is then responsible for his
brother’s widow and children. This helps keep the children and other resources the
deceased had collected within the family. The sororate is the flip side of the levirate.
In this system, a woman must marry the husband of her deceased sister. The Nuer
practice a form of the levirate called ghost marriage. If an elder brother dies without
fathering children, one of his younger brothers must marry his widow. Children
resulting from the ghost marriage are considered the offspring of the deceased
brother (Bonvillain 2010).