Indian law does not leave women in long, marriage-like relationships without a remedy when the relationship breaks down. Two Supreme Court decisions frame the field. In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2010), the Court favoured a broad reading of "wife" for maintenance purposes where the parties had lived together as husband and wife for long years, and referred the larger questions for authoritative decision. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Court laid down when a live-in arrangement amounts to a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — and when it does not. This explainer maps the routes available today.
Two statutes, two thresholds
The maintenance question in live-in cases is really a question about which statute the claimant can enter. Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 uses the word "wife", which presupposes marriage; the DV Act uses "domestic relationship", which does not. The practical consequence is a two-track analysis in every case: can a marriage be proved or presumed, and if not, does the relationship satisfy the DV Act tests?
| Route | Statutory hook | Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Section 144 BNSS | "Wife" — includes divorced wife | Proof of marriage, or facts raising the presumption of marriage from long cohabitation |
| DV Act, Sections 2(f) and 20 | "Domestic relationship" including a relationship in the nature of marriage | Indra Sarma factors; no formal marriage needed |
Chanmuniya: the presumption from cohabitation
In Chanmuniya, the parties had lived as husband and wife after a customary arrangement whose validity was disputed. The Supreme Court observed that where a man and woman have cohabited as spouses for a long period, a broad interpretation of "wife" should be favoured so that a man does not take advantage of loopholes to deny maintenance after enjoying a de facto marriage, and it framed the questions — including whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a Section 125 claim — for consideration by a larger Bench. The decision remains the touchstone for urging a presumption-based approach: long cohabitation, social recognition, and conduct as spouses shift the burden to the man to show there was no marriage.
Indra Sarma: the DV Act filter
In Indra Sarma, the relationship failed the test: the woman had entered a relationship with a man she knew was married. The Court held that not every live-in relationship is a relationship in the nature of marriage; it must resemble marriage in substance. The guides it listed include duration and continuity of the relationship, a shared household, pooling of financial and domestic arrangements, entrustment of responsibilities, sexual relationship of a marital character, having children and raising them together, socialisation in public as akin to spouses, and the intention and conduct of the parties. The decision also recognises the categories that ordinarily do not qualify — including a relationship where one party is already lawfully married and the other knows it.
What relief looks like in practice
- Under the DV Act: monetary relief under Section 20 (including maintenance and expenses), residence orders under Section 19 protecting occupation of the shared household, interim relief under Section 23, and compensation under Section 22.
- Under Section 144 BNSS: monthly maintenance where marriage is proved or presumed; interim maintenance pending decision; enforcement by warrant and, in default, detention.
- For children: maintenance under Section 144 BNSS irrespective of the parents' status, and under Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act.
Evidence that decides these cases
These claims are won and lost on documents that show a shared life: rent agreements and utility bills at a common address, joint accounts or regular transfers, photographs across years and family functions, hotel and travel records, hospital forms naming the partner as spouse, and the testimony of neighbours and relatives about how the couple presented themselves. For respondents, the same categories — and gaps in them — supply the defence, along with material showing the relationship was known to be outside the qualifying categories.
Practice note: Plead both routes in the alternative where the facts permit: a DV Act application under Sections 12, 19, 20 and 23, and a Section 144 BNSS petition asserting marriage or the presumption from cohabitation. The forums differ — Magistrate and Family Court respectively — but the factual foundation is common, and consistency between the two pleadings is essential.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a live-in partner claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS?
Section 144 BNSS, like Section 125 CrPC before it, speaks of a "wife". Strict proof of a valid marriage has traditionally been required, but in Chanmuniya (2010) the Supreme Court favoured a broad and expansive interpretation where the man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a long period, and referred the questions to a larger Bench. Where evidence shows long cohabitation and presumption of marriage, courts lean in favour of maintenance.
What is the surer route for a live-in partner?
The DV Act. Its definition of "domestic relationship" in Section 2(f) expressly covers a relationship in the nature of marriage, and monetary relief under Section 20 — including maintenance — is available to an aggrieved person in such a relationship, without proof of a formal marriage.
Which live-in relationships qualify under the DV Act?
Indra Sarma (2013) supplies the guides: the parties must hold themselves out to society as akin to spouses, be of legal age and otherwise qualified to marry, have cohabited voluntarily in a shared household for a significant period, with pooling of resources and domestic arrangements resembling marriage. A casual or concealed relationship, or one where a party knew the other was already married, may fall outside the protection.
Do children of a live-in relationship get maintenance?
Yes. A child's right to maintenance under Section 144 BNSS does not depend on the parents' marital status; the provision covers legitimate and illegitimate children alike. The child's claim stands even where the mother's own claim is contested.