Madras HC cites Gandharva marriage to protect women in live-in relationships

Chennai: The Madras High Court has underlined the need to safeguard the rights of women in live-in relationships, describing them as part of a “modern web” of relationships that often leave women vulnerable.

According to a report by LiveLaw, Justice S Srimathy made the observations while hearing an anticipatory bail petition filed by a man who feared arrest in a case involving a false promise to marry.

The court reiterated that live-in relationships, though increasingly common in Indian society, can leave women exposed to legal and emotional vulnerabilities. Drawing parallels with ancient traditions, it suggested that women in such relationships could be recognised under Gandharva marriages, a form of consensual love marriage, to ensure legal protection.

The court observed that while minor girls are protected under the POCSO Act, and married or divorced women have legal safeguards, women in live-in relationships often remain unprotected and suffer mental trauma. The bench emphasised that in cases involving sexual intercourse, the woman is either entitled to recognition as a wife or the accused must be prosecuted for promising to marry.

Court dismisses anticipatory bail plea

The prosecution stated that the man had engaged in a sexual relationship with a woman after promising to marry her. When her parents objected, the couple left their parental homes and moved to Trichy, where they rented a house and stayed together. The girl’s father subsequently filed a missing person complaint, after which the couple was brought to the police station. The petitioner allegedly promised to marry the woman, but his family objected, threatening the couple due to the inter-caste nature of the marriage.

During the hearing, the court noted that Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse by deceitful means, had not yet been invoked against the petitioner and directed the police to include it.

The petitioner contended that the allegations against him were false and fabricated. He argued that he had ended the relationship earlier and had not considered marrying the woman because he was unemployed and financially dependent on his parents. He sought anticipatory bail, claiming he had committed no offence.

The bench highlighted that the relationship between the parties was undisputed, but the petitioner had admitted he could not marry the woman after having sexual relations with her.

Since the petitioner refused to marry, the court ruled he should be charged under Section 69 of BNS, and dismissed the anticipatory bail plea.

Though legalised by the Supreme Court, live-in relationships remain a contentious issue in Indian courts. The Allahabad High Court had recently ordered police protection for 12 live-in couples facing threats from their families, with Justice Vivek Kumar Singh ruling that adults in such relationships are entitled to state protection of life and personal liberty, noting a rise in similar cases due to inadequate police response.