Validity of Live-in Relationship When One Partner is Married

Author -Abhishek Singh, Banaras Hindu University

The concept of Live-in relationship has evolved in Indian society over a period of time. It has traveled from a point of shame and oblivion to a point of acceptance as a valid instrument of relationship in the common parlance. These changing notions are easily visible in the judgments and orders passed by the respective courts as through them, the Live-in relationship was not only given recognition but they were also considered suitable for levying those rights and liabilities that are present in the case of marriages.
However, it is important to ensure that no single belief can become more prominent than others, which may in turn, threaten the very fabric. For this, the observation of the bench of the Madras High Court is worth considering. Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, while passing an order related to a live-in relationship on June 7, 2024, held that two adults living together when one of them was already married to someone else, cannot claim any succession or inheritance rights to the property of their alleged live-in partner.
The facts of the cases are as follows-
● Jayachandran and one Margarette Arulmozhi were living together without any marriage.

● At the same time, Jayachandran was already married to another woman and the couple had five children. Despite not maintaining any relationship, they were not divorced as per law. During this time, Jayachandran and Arulmozhi bought a house and they got it registered in Arulmozhi’s name by executing a settlement deed in her favor.

● In 2013, when Arulmozhi died, Jayachandran unilaterally canceled the settlement deed and sought to get the house back in his name alone. However, Arulmozhi’s father laid claim to his late daughter’s property and the trial court agreed.

● Jayachandran then approached the High Court. His counsel told the Court that he and Arulmozhi were living together like husband and wife even though they were not legally married and therefore, he should have a right to her property after her death.

Court’s observation:

Justice RMT Teekaa Raman while presiding on the bench held an opinion opposite to the favor of Jayachandran and held that “no live-in relationship can exist between a married man and another woman” as in such a case, the concerned woman is not capable of being granted the legal status of wife. He further observed that “The relationship between the appellant and Arulmozhi (now deceased) was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage and the status of the said person is that of a concubine. A “concubine” cannot maintain a relationship in the “nature of marriage” because such a relationship will not have exclusivity and will not be monogamous in character and consequently he cannot enter into a relationship in the nature of a marriage.”