The Kerala High Court has recently emphasized that live-in relationships are not recognized as marriages under the law.
A division bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque & Sophy Thomas stated that when two parties choose to live together based on an agreement, without following any personal law or the Special Marriage Act, they can’t claim it as a marriage or seek divorce.
The court highlighted that marriage, as a social institution, is recognized and affirmed in legislation based on societal norms and moral ideals. It further noted that live-in relationships are not yet legally recognized, and the law only grants recognition to relationships solemnized in accordance with personal or secular laws, such as the Special Marriage Act.
While live-in relationships may have other forms of recognition, the court clarified that divorce is specifically designed for the separation of legally married couples and does not apply to live-in relationships.
The Court said in its judgment that, “The law recognizes divorce as a means of separating a legal marriage. There may be a situation where the relationship qualifies for the creation of reciprocal obligations or duties elsewhere. But that does not mean that such a relationship can be recognized for the purpose of divorce.”
The High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, stating that parties living together based solely on an agreement cannot claim it as a marriage or seek divorce.
The judgment said that “A divorce is peculiar in our country and customized through legislation. The extra-judicial divorce followed in some communities also got recognition through statutory laws. All other forms of divorce are of statutory nature.”
The High Court was addressing an appeal filed by a couple in a live-in relationship who sought divorce under the Special Marriage Act.
The Family Court denied their request since they were not married under that Act.
However, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, stating that parties living together based solely on an agreement cannot claim it as a marriage or seek divorce. The court directed the Family Court to return the petition as not maintainable, as it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a claim.
The judgment stated that, “Any marriage entered into between the parties through a contract has, so far, not got any recognition under the law for the purpose of granting a divorce. In such circumstances, the Family Court also does not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim for divorce. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Family Court ought to have returned the petition holding that it is not maintainable.”
