Live-in relations suffered a set-back with the bar imposed by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment delivered on 17th May 2010 (2010 STPL (Web) 406 SC) in a family dispute in the matter of Bharathamatha vs. R Vijeya Renganathan. The Supreme Court held that a child born out of a live-in relationship was not entitled to claim inheritance in Hindu ancestral coparcenary property, but could get a share in the father’s self-acquired property. The dictum of the division bench comprising Dr B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ appears to be a general law but its roots of justification lie in the facts peculiar to this case. This ruling may not be accepted as a general law at all. It is only justified in this particular matter, but if applied to all live-in relations raising a presumption of marital bond; it would definitely result in gross miscarriage of justice. In S.P.S. alasubramanyam vs. Suruttayan @ Andali Padayachi & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 756, the Supreme Court allowed presumption of marriage u/s 114 of Evidence Act out of live-in relation and presumed that their children were legitimate. Hence, they are rightfully entitled to receive a share in the ancestral property.

On reading the headlines in newspapers or watching a debate on TV without going into the details of the factual background behind it, one wonders as to why a child born out of presumed wedlock should not get a share in the ancestral property while he is otherwise eligible to take a share in self-acquired property of the late father? Is it not a case of inequality?

In the instant case, Mariammal claimed her brother Muthu Reddiar’s property who died unmarried and intestate. Rengammal lived-in with Muthu and had children from that bond. After his death, she claimed inheritance. Earlier Rengammal had married Alagarasami Reddiar (who was alive) but they didn’t live together. Because of undissolved marriage between them, the trial court did not accept her live-in claim. Her first appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the Madras High Court held the judgment in favour of the live-in partner.

In Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 2522, the Apex Court held that live-in-relationship was permissible only between unmarried major persons of heterogeneous sex. If a spouse is married, the man could be guilty of adultery punishable under section 497 of the IPC. The same was relied on in S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr. JT 2010 (4) SC 478. With the husband surviving (though not with her), Rengammal cannot invoke presumption of live-in. Thus, the children became illegitimate and disqualified to inherit u/s 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This judgment is not prohibitive ‘law’ for live-in kids. So, live-in could be ‘a dangerous thing’ between a wife and non-husband as it could lead to the crime of adultery, but never to ‘marriage’.