Rajasthan

• 30 Jan 2025

Web Portal for Registering Live-in Relationships

Why in News?  

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government to launch a web portal for registering live-in relationships. 

Key Points 

• Reason for the Order: Several live-in couples face threats from family and society, leading them to file petitions under Article 226 seeking protection under Article 21.       
  • Article 226 provides the High Courts the authority to bring a lawsuit against a government entity if any citizen’s rights and freedoms are violated.  
  • The High Court has broad powers to issue orders and writs to any person or authority under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. 
• The court noted that while live-in relationships are not explicitly addressed in Indian law, SC has ruled in several cases such as Khushboo vs Kannaiammal (2010), Lata Singh vs State of UP (2006) and Indira Sarma vs V.K. Sarma (2013) that such relationships are not criminal and fall under the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21. 
• Necessity to Regulate: The court highlighted the need to regulate live-in relationships, noting that they lack social approval and may create legal complications, especially for women and children. 
• Establishment of Authority: Until a law is enacted, the court ordered the creation of a competent authority in each district to register and address grievances of live-in couples. 
  • The government must submit a compliance report by 1st March, 2025, outlining the steps taken. 
• Legal Clarification on Married Persons: The court referred to a larger bench the issue of whether married individuals in live-in relationships, without divorce, can seek protection. 
• New Legal Format for Live-in Couples:  
  • The court’s order also included the preparation of a formal registration format that all couples entering into live-in relationships must complete. The document would require couples to agree to specific terms before entering such relationships. Key provisions in the format would include the following: 
    • Child Support: Both partners would be obligated to agree on a “child plan” outlining their respective responsibilities for the education, healthcare, and general upbringing of any children born from the relationship. 
    • Maintenance: The male partner would be held responsible for financially supporting the non-earning female partner and any children resulting from the relationship, ensuring their economic security. 

Landmark Judgments Upholding Constitutional Morality 

• Lata Singh vs State of UP (2006): 
  • Directed protection for inter-caste and inter-religious couples from harassment and violence. 
• S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr. (2010): 
  • Declared sexual relations between consenting adults outside marriage as legal and within the right to privacy. 
• Naz Foundation vs Government of NCT of Delhi (2009): 
  • Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, declaring Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as a violation of rights. 
• Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018): 
  • Decriminalized adultery and declared it a violation of the rights to equality, dignity, privacy, and autonomy. 
• Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018): 
  • Affirmed the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to express their sexual orientation and identity with dignity. 
• Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M. (2018): 
  • Upheld the right to marry a person of one's choice regardless of religion or caste, nullifying the annulment of a Hindu-Muslim marriage. 
• Shakti Vahini vs Union of India (2018): 
  • Condemned honour killings and violence against inter-caste and inter-religious couples, issuing guidelines for prevention and protection.