The Madras High Court has made strong and wide-ranging remarks on live-in relationships, describing them as a “cultural shock” to Indian society, while also acknowledging that such relationships have now become common.

The Court observed that women in live-in relationships often face serious legal and social difficulties, especially when a man backs out of a promise to marry after an intimate relationship. In this context, the Court suggested that women in such relationships may need to be given the legal status of a “wife” so they are not left without protection.

These observations were made by division bench headed by Justice S. Srimathy of the Madurai Bench while rejecting a plea for anticipatory bail filed by a man accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman on the promise of marriage and later refusing to marry her.

According to the prosecution, the man and the woman had known each other since their school days, and their friendship eventually turned into a romantic relationship. The woman, who holds a nursing diploma, alleged that the man had sexual relations with her on several occasions over the years, repeatedly assuring her that he would marry her.

When the man’s family opposed the relationship, the couple allegedly left their respective homes and began living together in Tiruchirapalli district of Tamil Nadu, with the intention of getting married. However, the marriage never took place. The woman later approached the police, claiming that the man went back on his promise after taking advantage of the relationship.

In his defence, the accused did not deny the relationship but tried to disown the woman by casting doubts on her character. He claimed that he later found out she was involved with other men and, on that basis, chose not to marry her. The court noted that such arguments are commonly raised in cases of this nature.

While rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail, the High Court made sharp observations about how vulnerable women in live-in relationships often are and the social stigma they continue to face.

The Court remarked that live-in relationships may be a “cultural shock” to Indian society, but acknowledged that they are now becoming increasingly common. It noted that many young men and women consider themselves modern when they choose such arrangements.

Justice Srimathy pointed out that women often realise too late that live-in relationships do not offer the same legal safeguards as marriage. When this reality dawns on them, the consequences can be harsh and deeply distressing, the Court observed.

The order also highlighted that many women hesitate to come forward due to fear of social judgment and public shaming. At the same time, the Court criticised the conduct of men who initially present themselves as progressive but later change their stance. The judge noted that when relationships break down, men frequently resort to questioning the woman’s character, using character assassination as a tool to evade responsibility.

Referring to Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual relations obtained through deceit or a false promise of marriage, the Court made it clear that men cannot avoid legal action after backing out of such promises. The judge observed that if a man enters into a relationship on the assurance of marriage and later refuses to go through with it, he must be prepared to face the consequences under the law.

In an important observation, the judge suggested that live-in relationships could be seen as similar to Gandharva or love marriages recognised in ancient Indian tradition. The Court said that women in live-in relationships should be given the legal status of a “wife,” so they are not left without rights or protection if the relationship breaks down.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the promise of marriage, and the man’s later refusal to honour it, the High Court held that custodial interrogation was required. On this basis, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.