The issue gained prominence in May 2021 following two controversial decisions by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. First, in Gulzar Kumari v. State of Punjab[4] and Ujjawal v. In the state of Haryana,[5] the Court refused to protect couples living together in a life relationship, stating that such relationships were morally and socially unacceptable and could destroy the social fabric of Indian society. Residency relationships are legalized in India, but Indian society treats them as taboo. Slowly and gradually, Indians accept this change and open their minds to the idea of sex and life relationships before marriage. But this change is constantly criticized and must fight to be accepted in society. In Bharatha Matha v. Vijaya Renganathan (2010), the Supreme Court awarded children born of civil partnerships a portion of their parents` property. The court ruled that children born in life relationships cannot be considered illegal if the relationship lasts long enough. In India, there is no explicit law or customary law governing the relationship between life and life.

For example, the Supreme Court has issued decisions broadening the concept of partnership living in the household and establishing rules for dealing with such relationships. In Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation[16], the Supreme Court legitimized a 50-year relationship. Since the couple had lived together for a long time, there was a strong presumption in favour of marriage. And the law favored the legitimacy of their relationship. If a third party attempts to rebut such a presumption, it places a heavy burden on it. [17] Life relationships are becoming increasingly popular in India. The law does not tell us how to live; It is ethics and social norms that explain what it means to live in the welfare model. The Court recognizes that what the law considers not to be a crime may still be immoral. In a 2006 judgment, which the Court has now taken note of, it was stated that two consenting adults having sexual relations do not constitute a criminal offence under the law, “even though it may be perceived as immoral”. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P.

(2006), the Supreme Court held that while life relationships are considered unethical, they are not illegal under the law. In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kushwaha,[31] the Supreme Court overturned the previous judgment and upheld the right of a woman living in a couple living in the household to maintenance under section 125 of the CRP.C. The reason for granting such a right to a woman in a relationship living in the household is to ensure that a man does not exploit legal loopholes by enjoying the benefits of a common-law marriage without fulfilling the duties of that marriage. According to Psychology Today, research shows that marriage can promote better mental and physical health for partners than staying single or being in life relationships. The Constitution of India has given the people certain fundamental rights and freedoms. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, Indian citizens have a fundamental right to freedom of expression and opinion, and to reside and settle in any part of Indian territory. In addition, article 21 of the Constitution gives every human being the right to life. The desire to live with a partner of one`s choice and to enter into a sexual relationship is subject to the above-mentioned rights and freedoms. However, it should be noted that these rights and freedoms are not absolute. Life in relationship is a pure agreement between the parties; Once a party to a residential relationship determines that they do not want to live in such a relationship, that relationship ends.

Therefore, this is called a walk-in & walk-out relationship. Living in a relationship is neither a crime nor a sin; although it is unacceptable in Indian society to some extent. In a country like India, where marriages are seen as a social basis for legalizing the relationship between a man and a woman; The concept of life in relationship has created a new dimension in the field of relations between men and women. Section 2 (f) of the Domestic Violence Act defines a domestic relationship as a relationship of the “nature of marriage” between two persons/adults living in a common household. There are two main reasons to recognize relationships in the above category “these”. First, in our view, relationships living in the household in which a married person is involved fall into the four corners of “domestic relationships” under the DV Act. This view was confirmed by the Madras High Court in Malarkodi @ Malar v. The Chief Audit Executive (2021), in which we adopted a broad interpretation of paragraph 2(f) and recognized that it is broad enough to encompass the relationships of the latter category noted above.