Live-in, pay up? Mumbai court says long-term partners owe maintenance too

Mumbai magistrate's court has ordered a man to pay ₹5,000 per month in maintenance to his former live-in partner and her child from a previous marriage.

In a notable judgment, a Mumbai magistrate's court has ordered a man to pay Rs 5,000 per month in maintenance to his former live-in partner and her child from a previous marriage. The court emphasized that living together in a relationship similar to marriage is enough for a woman to claim legal protection—even without a formal wedding.

 

 The court held that cohabiting in a relationship “akin to marriage” is sufficient grounds to claim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, regardless of formal marital status.

 

Why this ruling matters for your finances

This decision could have far-reaching financial implications for individuals in non-marital partnerships. The court found that even in the absence of a formal marriage, long-term cohabitation that mirrors the emotional and physical dynamics of a marriage can trigger financial responsibilities akin to spousal maintenance.It also clarifies that filing a rape complaint against a live-in partner does not invalidate a woman's right to seek protection or financial support under the DV Act.

 

The woman in this case had alleged emotional and physical abuse, along with abandonment by the man after he had promised marriage. While she initially sought Rs 55,000 per month in maintenance, the court settled on Rs 5,000—nonetheless acknowledging her right to financial support.

 

Legal experts see the ruling as consistent with evolving jurisprudence. 

 

Sucharita Basu, Founding and Managing Partner at AQUILAW explains this with some context:

 

The Supreme Court has set a strong precedent in this regard. In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 141, the Court held that a live-in relationship "in the nature of marriage" falls within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act. This landmark ruling broadened the interpretation of "domestic relationship," allowing women in such arrangements to claim maintenance, protection, and other reliefs available under the law.

 

This principle was reaffirmed in (2019) 11 SCC 491, where the Court observed that when a couple lives together for a significant period, the law presumes in favor of marriage and not concubinage. The Court emphasized the need to provide women with legal safeguards in non-formal partnerships, recognizing the vulnerability and lack of recourse many may face otherwise.

 

"In this context, the recent ruling by the Mumbai Magistrate Court, directing a man to pay maintenance to his former live-in partner and her son from a previous marriage, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to adapting the law in accordance with changing social realities," said Basu.

 

This view was reaffirmed in a more recent decision: Smt. Shiramabai v. The Captain, Record Officer (2023 INSC 744), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “Law infers a presumption in favour of a marriage when a man and woman have continuously cohabitated for a long spell.” The Mumbai magistrate court echoed this principle, stating that a shared roof alone was sufficient to form the substance of a marriage. The ruling aligns with Sections 50 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allow courts to infer marriage based on the natural course of events and the conduct of the parties as per Asav Rajan, Associate Partner, IndiaLaw LLP.

 

What this means for couples in Live-In Relationships

As courts increasingly recognize live-in relationships as equivalent to marriage for certain legal purposes, financial obligations such as alimony, child support, and property rights could become enforceable in such partnerships.

 

Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, noted:

 

“This ruling empowers women abandoned after long-term cohabitation, but it also places live-in relationships under legal scrutiny. Men in such arrangements may now face alimony, financial liability, and even custody issues. This might push couples toward formal marriage—or toward legally drafted cohabitation contracts.”

 

According to Razvi, this also opens up new risks, including:

• False or exaggerated claims of cohabitation
• Complex evidentiary requirements to prove the nature of the relationship
• Inconsistent judicial interpretations in absence of statutory clarity.

 

This decision contributes to the evolving legal recognition of live-in relationships in India, offering recourse to individuals who may fall outside traditional legal frameworks. 

 

"It underscores that women cannot be deprived of maintenance or protection merely because the relationship lacks legal marital status. This strengthens the legal position of women who may face economic or emotional abandonment after prolonged cohabitation, especially when such relationships involve promises of marriage, joint households, or shared responsibilities. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting the rights of women in non-marital cohabitations, ensuring they are not left without legal remedies in cases of abandonment or abuse," said Soayib Qureshi, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors.

 

Call for legislative action

While the judiciary has been progressive, legal experts agree that legislative clarity is urgently needed. There is still no specific law in India that defines or regulates live-in relationships.

 

Aslam Ahmed, Partner at Singhania & Co., emphasized:

 

“The DV Act, 2005 was the first step in recognizing non-marital relationships, but it isn’t enough. Dedicated legislation is needed to clearly define rights, duties, and liabilities in live-in arrangements.”

 

Ahmed cited D. Veluswamy v. D. Patchaiammal (AIR 2011 SC 479), where the Supreme Court referenced the American concept of "palimony" and urged Indian law to evolve with changing societal norms.

 

“Until Parliament acts, courts will continue to fill the vacuum case-by-case. But this creates uncertainty. Codified law is essential to balance protection with due process,” he added.

 

For individuals in live-in relationships—or considering one—this ruling is a wake-up call. Cohabitation is no longer just a personal or emotional arrangement; it has legal and financial consequences.

 

Couples may now want to:

• Draft cohabitation agreements to clarify financial terms
• Maintain records of shared expenses, leases, or property ownership
• Understand that long-term cohabitation could result in maintenance obligations or legal claims, especially if children are involved