A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN FROM LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT BY - ANUSHKA CHOUDHARY
A
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN FROM LIVE IN
RELATIONSHIPS IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT
AUTHORED
BY - *ANUSHKA CHOUDHARY
ABSTRACT
A
critical analysis of the legal rights of children born in live-in relationships
in the Indian context reveals significant complexities and evolving judicial
interpretations. Live-in relationships, though socially stigmatized, have
gained legal recognition in India, primarily through progressive judicial
pronouncements. However, the legal rights of children born from such
relationships remain a contentious issue. The Indian judiciary, particularly
the Supreme Court, has made strides in addressing the legitimacy and rights of
these children. In landmark cases, the Court has affirmed that children born
out of live-in relationships are entitled to the same rights as those born
within wedlock. This includes rights to inheritance, maintenance, and
protection under the law. The judiciary's stance aligns with the broader
principles of the Indian Constitution, which emphasizes equality and
non-discrimination. However, practical challenges persist in the enforcement of
these rights due to societal biases and the lack of specific legislative
frameworks. This
research article critically examines the
various legal rights afforded to children born from live-in relationships in
India. It delves into the rights concerning inheritance, guardianship, and
social protection, highlighting how the legal framework addresses or falls
short in recognizing the entitlements of these children.
INTRODUCTION
Centuries
ago, the eminent Greek philosopher Aristotle asserted that humans are
inherently social beings, finding comfort and belonging within society,
particularly in familial settings.[1]
However, the passage of time has witnessed a gradual erosion of the Aristotle's
statement. Presently, individuals challenge the once unquestioned validity of
societal norms, seeking alternatives and creating their own set of principles
that diverge from traditional social constructs. Despite marriage enduring as a
long-standing social institution, contemporary society witnesses the emergence
of a new phenomena aimed at liberating individuals from conventional
constraints. Yearning for increased autonomy, people have embraced significant
shifts, notably the rise of Live-in Relationships, as a means to transcend the
limitations imposed by the institution of marriage.
Live-in
relationships have been stigmatized in India since the pre-independence era,
although attitudes towards them vary between urban and rural areas. While such
relationships are not generally taboo in cities, they are viewed more
conservatively in villages.[2]
In India, live-in relationships are not deemed illegal but are often considered
immoral. The absence of legislation addressing this issue poses significant
challenges, particularly concerning the rights and obligations of the parties
involved.[3]
Without clear legal guidelines, issues related to inheritance and succession of
property in cases where partners die intestate remain unresolved. Courts have
stepped in to interpret and clarify several of the legal disputes and
question in these kinds of arrangements
in the absence of specific laws. With the
passage of time, there has been a
noticeable rise in the number of individuals opting for relationships
alternative to the marraige. While this trend has long been accepted in Western
countries, it is gradually gaining acceptance in India as well.
Ensuring
the rights and welfare of children is paramount within any legal framework, and
this concern becomes particularly pronounced in situations where there are no
specific laws addressing certain family structures, such as live-in relationships.[4]
In such scenarios, the legal status and future of children born within these
relationships can become uncertain, leaving them vulnerable and potentially
exposed to various legal challenges. The absence of clear legal provisions
addressing the rights and responsibilities associated with children born out of
live-in relationships creates a significant gap in the legal framework, which
can have far-reaching implications for their upbringing and well-being.
Recognizing
the urgency of addressing this issue, the Indian judiciary has played a pivotal
role in interpreting and applying existing legislation to safeguard the rights
of children born out of live-in relationships. Despite the absence of specific
laws pertaining to such relationships, the judiciary has taken proactive steps
to fill this legal void by extending the protective umbrella of existing laws
to cover children in these circumstances.[5]
Through judicious interpretation and application of relevant statutes, courts
have sought to ensure that children born out of live-in relationships are not
deprived of their inherent rights and entitlements merely due to the
unconventional nature of their parents' union.
By
invoking principles of equity, justice, and the best interests of the child,
the Indian judiciary has underscored the importance of protecting the rights of
children irrespective of the marital status or relationship dynamics of their
parents. Through landmark judgments and legal precedents, courts have affirmed
the equal rights of children born out of live-in relationships to inheritance,
maintenance, and other essential entitlements, thereby affirming their status
as legitimate members of society deserving of legal recognition and protection.
LEGITIMACY OF
CHILDREN BORN OUT OF LIVE IN RELATIONHSIP
Children
born within a valid marriage are considered legitimate under Indian law,
entitling them to all legal rights and obligations outlined in various
legislations. Both the HSA, 1956 and the ISA, 1925 explicitly recognize the
legal rights of such children. Section 16 of the HMA, 1955 specifically
addresses the status of children born from void marriages, effectively removing
any stigma of illegitimacy and granting them legitimacy.[6]
However, Indian laws currently do not explicitly recognize the legal position
of children born from Live-In Relationships. In the absence of dedicated
legislation governing Live-In Relationships, recourse can be taken to Section
16 of the HMA to establish legitimacy for such children. Consequently, children
born from Live-In Relationships can rightfully claim a share in their father's
property. Moreover, the Live-In couple retains the ability to confer their
rights in movable and immovable property, particularly in respect to
self-acquired assets.
The
legal framework regarding children born from live-in relationships is protected
under Section 16 of the HMA. According to this provision, children born out of
such relationships are not considered illegitimate. Legitimacy forms the
foundation for all other rights that a child is entitled to in India.[7]
In the landmark case of S.P.S.
Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan[8],
the SC ruled that if a male and female cohabit while residing in same residence
for an extended period, a presumption of marriage arises under Section 114 of
the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, children born out of such relationship are
taken as legitimate, further solidifying the protection and rights afforded to
children born from live-in relationships under Indian law.
In
cases such as Tulsa v. Durghatiya[9],
the SC of India has firmly established that Child born out of the
arrangement of live in relationship will be considered same as the child born
out of the relation of marriage. However, court has highlighted few points that
needs to be considered while deciding upon the legitimacy of the children born
out of such relationship. It was outlined in this case that for the child to be
considered as legitimate it is essential that the parents of the child has lived
in same residence and cohabited for a long period of time and society perceived
them as the husband and the wife.
The
relationship should not merely be transient or characterized by sporadic
cohabitation, as emphasized by the SC in its judgment in the famous case of Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. v. Rajni Kant
and Anr[10].
This legal precedent underscores the importance of stability and long-term
commitment in determining whether the child born from such relationship is
legitimate or not, ensuring that they are afforded the same rights and status
as children born within the confines of a formal marriage.
The
Courts in India have interpreted the existing laws to ensure that no child is
unfairly stigmatized due to the circumstances of their birth, as demonstrated
in the case of Bharatha Matha and Ors.
v. R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors[11].
Here, the SC underscored that children born from live-in relationships should
not suffer discrimination and may rightfully inherit their parents' property,
thereby gaining legitimacy under the law.
In
the judgment of Revanasiddappa v.
Mallikarjun[12],
the court established a crucial precedent by emphasizing the principle that the
legitimacy of the relationship between parents should not affect the status of
the child born from that relationship. Justice AK Ganguly aptly remarked that
regardless of the parents' relationship status, the child is innocent and
entitled to all the privileges and rights accorded to children born from valid
marriages.
In
the case of Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai[13],
the SC established a significant precedent by affirming that children born from
live-in relationships, as per Section 16 of the HMA, should be recognized as
"legal heirs" and thus entitled to inherit the property of both
parents. However, the interpretation of the legal status of children born from
such relationships has been subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny. In the case
of Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan
Kalliani Amma vs. K. Devi[14],
the concept of deeming a child legitimate for certain purposes while
maintaining illegitimacy for others was challenged, highlighting the need for
clarity and consistency in legal interpretations.
MAINTENANCE OF
CHILDREN BORN OUT OF LIVE IN RELATIONHSIP
Maintenance
of children is a profoundly significant aspect of live-in relationships, often
requiring careful consideration and legal framework. In these relationships,
where couples cohabit without entering into a formal marriage, issues
surrounding the well-being and financial support of any children involved can
be complex and sensitive. Unlike in a traditional marital setup where
responsibilities and rights regarding children are more clearly defined, the
dynamics in a live-in relationship can vary widely.
Maintenance
is a duty imposed on an individual to provide financial support to another,
often referred to as alimony.[15]
This responsibility becomes crucial in the context of children born out of
live-in relationships. According to Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956, dependents such as a legitimate son, the son of a
predeceased son, or the son of a predeceased son of a predeceased son, are
entitled to maintenance as long as they are minors. Additionally, legitimate
unmarried daughters or the unmarried daughters of a son, or the unmarried
daughters of a predeceased son of a predeceased son, are also eligible to be
maintained by their father or from the estate of their deceased father.
However, children born out of live-in relationships were originally not
included under this provision, thus denying them the statutory right to
maintenance. In a notable effort to uphold social justice, the Indian judiciary
addressed this gap in the landmark case of Dimple Gupta v. Rajiv Gupta. In this
case, the SC of India ruled that even an illegitimate child born from an
illicit relationship is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). This section mandates the provision of
maintenance to children, irrespective of their legitimacy, as long as they are
minors. Furthermore, this maintenance obligation extends beyond the child’s attainment
of majority if they are unable to support themselves, thus ensuring a broader
interpretation of social welfare and justice.
The
case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v.
State of Gujarat[16]
presents an exception to the general principle of maintenance in live-in
relationships. Here, the live-in partner, who had taken on the role of a second
wife, was denied maintenance. However, the child born from this relationship
was granted maintenance. This distinction underscores the judiciary's approach
to protecting the rights of children born out of such unions, while maintaining
a different standard for the partners involved. Refusing maintenance to a child
born from a live-in relationship can be contested under Article 32 of the
Indian Constitution, as it violates fundamental rights, particularly the Right
to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Denial of maintenance
can strip an individual of the right to live with dignity, a principle
supported by the Kerala High Court in P.V.
Susheela v. Komalavally[17].
This viewpoint was reinforced by the SC in Dimple Gupta v. Rajiv Gupta, where
the court affirmed that a child born out of an illicit relationship is entitled
to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This
provision mandates maintenance for children, regardless of their legitimacy,
until they reach adulthood, and further, if they are unable to sustain
themselves due to any disability, they are entitled to maintenance beyond the
age of majority. The SC 's stance in this case highlights the importance of
ensuring that children born out of live-in relationships are not deprived of
their fundamental rights and can lead a dignified life.
Treating
a child born from a live-in relationship differently from a child born within a
marriage, despite both being regarded as legitimate under the law, constitutes
a breach of Article 14, which ensures equality before the law. This principle
was established in the case of Bharatha
Matha and Ors. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors[18].
The SC in this case emphasized that any form of discrimination between these
children is unjust and violates their fundamental right to equality. The ruling
underscored that all children, irrespective of the nature of their parents'
relationship, should be afforded the same legal rights and protections.
Discriminatory practices that deny equal treatment based on the circumstances
of birth undermine the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and equal
treatment under the law. The judiciary's interpretation in this landmark case
highlights the importance of upholding the principles of fairness and
non-discrimination, ensuring that every child is treated equally and with dignity,
irrespective of their parents' marital status.
In
India, each personal law contains provisions for the maintenance of children,
ensuring their welfare and support regardless of their parents' marital status.
The outdated and stigmatizing term "illegitimate" has been discarded
in legal discourse, no longer applied to children born to unmarried couples who
have cohabited for an extended period. Instead, legislation prohibits
derogatory labels such as "whoreson" or "fruit of adultery,"
presuming legitimacy for the child's benefit. Efforts have been made within the
legal framework to eradicate the concept of illegitimacy, as previously
discussed regarding the recognition of children born out of live-in
relationships.
The
courts have affirmed the legitimacy of children born in various circumstances,
including those from marriages deemed legal, invalid, or voidable, as well as
live-in relationships (excluding inheritance rights from ancestors).
Furthermore, research indicates that children born from live-in relationships
retain legal entitlements, including the right to seek maintenance under the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, and the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CRPC), irrespective of their statutory legitimacy or
court-recognized status.
Illegitimate
children, too, are afforded the right to maintenance under these statutes,
emphasizing the legal obligation of a Hindu to provide support for their
offspring throughout their lifetime. Section 20 of the HAMA, 1956, specifically
addresses the maintenance of children, asserting that as long as the child is a
minor, they may claim maintenance from either parent, regardless of legitimacy.
Additionally, under the HAMA of 1956, parents are obliged to support their
unmarried daughters who are unable to sustain themselves financially.
INHERITENCE RIGHTS OF
CHILDREN BORN OUT OF LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP
Property
rights encompass the inheritance rights that children hold, particularly
regarding ancestral property. Under the HMA, 1955, children born from legitimate
marital relationships are entitled to inherit such properties. However,
complications arise when addressing the inheritance rights of children born out
of live-in relationships. In these relationships, partners cohabit for extended
periods without legally or socially formalizing their union through marriage.
Recent judicial rulings have extended ancestral property rights to children
born from these live-in arrangements. Nevertheless, children resulting from
one-night stands or transient relationships do not receive such inheritance
rights. Legitimacy has historically been a prerequisite for inheritance under
Hindu law. Thus, courts have consistently ensured that children born from
live-in relationships of significant duration are not deprived of inheritance
rights, aligning this practice with Article 39(f) of the Indian Constitution.
The SC, in the landmark case of Vidyadhari
v. Sukhrana Bai[19],
affirmed this position by granting inheritance rights to children born out of
live-in relationships, recognizing them as "legal heirs." This
judgment underscored the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that all children,
irrespective of the nature of their parents' relationship, are treated
equitably regarding inheritance, thereby upholding their dignity and constitutional
rights.
Legitimacy
has consistently been a fundamental requirement for inheritance rights.
Consequently, the judiciary has ensured that children born from sustained
live-in relationships are not deprived of their right to inherit, in alignment
with Article 39(f) of the Indian Constitution. This principle was notably
upheld in the SC 's historic ruling in Vidyadhari
v. Shukrana Bai[20],
which granted inheritance rights to children born from live-in partnerships,
recognizing them as legitimate heirs. A pivotal moment in this legal evolution
occurred in Balasubramanyam v.
Suruttayan[21],
where the SC for the first time conferred legal legitimacy on children born
from live-in relationships. The Court articulated that when a man and woman
cohabit under the same roof for a considerable period, a presumption of
marriage arises under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the
children born from such unions are deemed legitimate and entitled to inherit
ancestral property. Further reinforcing this stance, in a 2008 ruling, the SC
affirmed that children born from live-in relationships should enjoy equal
inheritance rights as legal heirs. This was exemplified in the case of Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand[22],
where the Court stated that a couple living together and being perceived by
society as married, sharing a household over a long duration, should be
considered married. As a result, children born from such relationships are
accorded the same inheritance rights as those born from traditional marriages.
This progression in legal interpretation ensures that all children, regardless
of the nature of their parents' relationship, are treated equitably concerning
inheritance rights, thereby safeguarding their dignity and constitutional
entitlements.
In
the case of Ravaanasiddappa v. Mallikaarjun, the Hon’ble SC asserted that
children born from a woman in a live-in relationship are entitled to inherit
the property of their biological father as 'his legal heirs.' This decision,
along with several other judicial pronouncements, reinforces the stance that no
child should be denied their inheritance rights merely due to being born out of
a live-in relationship, provided the relationship lasted for a reasonable
period. Similarly, in the landmark case of S.P.S. Balasubramanyama v.
Sruttayana, the SC observed that when a man and woman cohabit under the same
roof for a substantial period, it is presumed that they are living as husband
and wife, and any children born from such a union will be considered
legitimate. This judgment was significant in interpreting legal provisions in
line with Article 39(f) of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized that
children born from live-in relationships should be given the same opportunities
and facilities to grow in a healthy environment and in conditions of freedom
and dignity, protecting their childhood and youth from exploitation. The SC 's
interpretation affirms the legitimacy of progenies from live-in relationships,
ensuring their rights to inherit property and safeguarding their interests,
thus upholding the principles of fairness and equality enshrined in the
Constitution.
In
the case of Uday Gupta v. Aysha and
Another[23],
the petitioner's argument before the SC contended that the High Court had erred
in its observation that not all customary rites need to be followed for a valid
marriage. The petitioner asserted that such an observation could undermine the
very institution of marriage. However, the SC clarified that the observation
was specific to the marriage in question and not intended for universal
application. Referencing various judgments, the Court noted that the law
typically presumes in favor of marriage and against concubinage. When a man and
woman have lived together continuously for many years, the law tends to presume
that they are married, although this presumption can be rebutted with
incontrovertible evidence. The Court further remarked that Section 16 of the HMA,
1955 aims to promote social reform by granting legitimacy to a group of
children who would otherwise be considered illegitimate. Thus, if a man and
woman mutually agree to live together and do so for a substantial period as
husband and wife without being legally married, there is a presumption of
marriage, and their children should not be considered illegitimate.
The
Madras High Court has also upheld that children born from such cohabitation
have property rights. Before 2010, children born from cohabitation were deemed
illegitimate. However, in the landmark case of Bharata Matha v. R. Vijya Renganathan[24],
the SC granted these children legal status, affirming their inheritance rights.
Additionally, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 provides women the right to
inherit ancestral and self-acquired property regardless of their marital
status. This legislative framework ensures that children born from
non-traditional relationships are afforded the same legal rights and
protections as those born within traditional marriages, promoting equality and
upholding their dignity.
CONCLUSION
The
Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting existing legislation
to uphold and protect the rights of children born within live-in relationships.
Section 16 of the HMA, 1955, stands as a significant piece of legislation in
this context, serving as a groundbreaking provision that safeguards the legal
rights of children born from both void and voidable relationships, thereby
encompassing children born from live-in arrangements. This provision serves as
a cornerstone for ensuring the legitimacy and legal entitlements of such children,
irrespective of the marital status of their parents. By recognizing the rights
of children born from live-in relationships, the judiciary has effectively
addressed the inherent complexities and challenges surrounding their legal
status and entitlements. Through judicial interpretation and application of
existing laws, the Indian judiciary has underscored the principle of equality
before the law, ensuring that children born from live-in relationships are
entitled to the same rights and privileges as those born within formal
marriages. This interpretation reflects a commitment to protecting the welfare
and interests of children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, and
reinforces the notion of equality and justice within Indian society.
The
need for comprehensive legislation that clearly defines and protects the rights
of children born from live-in relationships is paramount. Such legislation
should ensure equal treatment in matters of inheritance, maintenance, and
social security. Additionally, awareness and societal acceptance are crucial to
mitigating the stigma associated with live-in relationships and safeguarding
the interests of affected children. This critical analysis underscores the
necessity for a balanced approach that harmonizes judicial activism with
legislative action, thereby ensuring that the rights of all children,
irrespective of their birth circumstances, are upheld in accordance with
constitutional mandates and international human rights standards.
REFERENCES
·
Akhilesh
Pathak, Duality of Human Marriage 112
(Raj Publicqtions, India, 1st edn., 2019)
·
Lobo,
Marriage and Divorce in India: Changing
Concepts and Practices 66 (Manohar Publishers and Distrbutors, Allahabad, 3rd
edn., 2019)
·
Mandeep
Kaur, “Legal Perspective on Live-In Relationships in Present Scenario” 6 International Journal of Research and
Analytical Reviews 939 (2019)
·
Child Rights and Why they Matter, available at:
https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/child-rights-why-they-matter
(last visited on April 1, 2024)
·
Naveen
Talawar, “Live-In Relationship in India” 4 International
Journal of Law Management and Humanities 474 (2021)
[1] Akhilesh Pathak, Duality of Human Marriage 112 (Raj
Publicqtions, India, 1st edn., 2019)
[2] Lobo, Marriage and Divorce in India: Changing Concepts and Practices 66
(Manohar Publishers and Distrbutors, Allahabad, 3rd edn., 2019)
[3] Mandeep Kaur, “Legal Perspective on
Live-In Relationships in Present Scenario” 6 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 939 (2019)
[4] Child Rights and Why they Matter, available at:
https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/child-rights-why-they-matter
(last visited on April 1, 2024)
[5] Naveen Talawar, “Live-In
Relationship in India” 4 International
Journal of Law Management and Humanities
474 (2021)
[8] 1994 AIR 133
[9] AIR 2008 SC 1193
[10] AIR 2010 SC 2933
[11] AIR 2010 SC 2685
[13] AIR 2008 SC 1420
[14] AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1963
[15] Dr. Prativa Panda, “The Status of
Live-in Relationship in India: A Legal and Judicial Approach” 8 International Journal of Legal Studies
45 (2019)
[16] AIR 2005 SC 1809
[17] I(2000)DMC376
[18] AIR 2010 SC 2685
[20] Ibid
[21] 1994 SCC (1) 460
[22] Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl. No(s). 9080/2013