The apex court said, unfortunately, there was no express statutory provision to regulate live-in relationships upon termination, as these were not in the nature of marriage and not recognised by law.
In the landmark judgment, a Bench headed by Justice K S Radhakrishnan framed guidelines for bringing live-in relationships within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
More From This Section
"Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment to the Act, so that women and the children born out of such kinds of relationships can be protected, though such a relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage," the Bench said.
"A live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, though socially unacceptable in this country. The decision to marry or not to marry, or to have a heterosexual relationship, is intensely personal," the bench said, adding that various countries had started recognising such relationships. The court said a legislation was required for these, as it was the woman who invariably suffers because of the breakdown of such a relationship. "We cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that inequities do exist in such relationships and on breaking down such a relationship, the woman invariably is the sufferer," it said.
"Such relationship, it may be noted, may endure for a long time and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and increasing number of such relationships, calls for adequate and effective protection, especially to the woman and children born out of that live-in-relationship. Legislature, of course, cannot promote pre-marital sex, though, at times, such relationships are intensively personal and people may express their opinion, for and against," it said.
The Bench, however, said that maintaining an adulterous relation would not come within the ambit of live-in relationship which is to be protected by law. "Polygamy... or a relationship by way of a bigamous marriage... and/or maintaining an adulterous relationship... cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage," the bench said.