Live-in relationships have become increasingly common in India, offering couples a way to cohabit without the formalities of marriage. While these arrangements are legal and rooted in personal choice, they often fall into a legal limbo when disputes arise. A recent ruling by the Madras High Court has highlighted this ambiguity, denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of abandoning a woman after promising marriage and engaging in an intimate relationship. The court emphasized that false promises of marriage can lead to criminal consequences, underscoring that consent must be tied to honest intent. It warned against using modernity as an excuse to evade accountability, pointing to a broader societal issue where intimacy built on deception raises serious legal questions.

The judges used strong language to address the vulnerabilities in such setups. They noted that promises of marriage cannot be made lightly and withdrawn casually, as this could invoke criminal law if consent was obtained through falsehoods. However, the court also acknowledged a significant gap: India lacks a comprehensive law governing live-in relationships. Protections largely stem from judicial precedents rather than legislation.

Long-term cohabitations may receive some recognition, but short-term ones often exist in a gray zone, leaving partners without automatic rights to property, maintenance, or clear dispute resolution mechanisms. Children from these relationships fare better with established safeguards, but adults are left navigating uncertainty. The ruling reaffirmed that consenting adults have the constitutional right to personal liberty, and the state must protect such couples from threats or harassment.

This decision sparks larger questions about whether live-in couples deserve basic legal safeguards, if personal liberty suffices when relationships falter, and who bears the brunt when promises are broken. In the Indian context, social change appears to outpace legal evolution, with surveys indicating that one in ten couples now opts for live-in arrangements—a trend that has accelerated in recent years. Historical references, such as Gandharva marriages in ancient texts, suggest these relationships are not novel, but their modern prevalence has led courts to intervene repeatedly, setting precedents in the absence of dedicated laws.

To delve deeper into these issues, experts weighed in on the debate. A section of the legal fraternity Lawyer highlighted the vulnerabilities women face in live-in relationships, describing them as marriage-like setups without legal boundaries. They explained that women are often exploited through false promises of marriage, facing a "walk-in, walk-out" dynamic that leaves them exposed. The Madras High Court, they noted, addressed this gap by advocating for "wife-like" status to prevent emotional breakdowns and reduce social stigma.

They also pointed out that societal judgment disproportionately affects women if a relationship ends; after which the women may struggle with family acceptance or be labeled negatively, such as being accused of seeking financial gain. They cited Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which allows prosecution if a man refuses marriage after a physical relationship based on such promises, though she agreed it should be a two-way process.

A social psychologist and professor offered a contrasting perspective, arguing that marriage remains a respected institution in India, involving not just two individuals but entire families and extended networks. She expressed reservations about encouraging live-in relationships, citing ground research showing limited social acceptance—parents often reluctantly tolerate them only after discovery. She emphasized mutual responsibility, questioning why women are deemed more vulnerable solely due to biology. She contended that both partners enter knowingly and should have the freedom to exit without legal pressure, warning that blurring lines between relationships and marriage complicates matters. Referencing few well known cases, she argued against criminalizing one party, as it could lead to misuse and family-wide stigma.

The discussion intensified on gender dynamics and deception. When asked about scenarios where marriage is promised but not fulfilled—potentially affecting either gender—the professor maintained that vulnerability is shared, as promises flow both ways. She criticized gender disparity in legal approaches, drawing from her decades of marital counseling experience where women have also misled partners about habits like drinking or mental health issues. One lawyer however countered by stressing the greater social stigma for women, who may face rejection from their families or be viewed as opportunistic if seeking alimony. She noted an uptick in court cases as young couples embrace modernity without grasping the legal voids, leading to breakdowns once the lack of certainty becomes apparent.

Another lawyer also explained protections under the Domestic Violence Act, including safeguards against various abuses and the right to reside in a shared household, regardless of ownership. On proving emotional deception in court, some lawyers acknowledged the challenges but noted increasing misuse of laws, with judges expunging frivolous cases. However, a section of psychologists and family counsellors , while agreeing on the need for balance, advocated against gender bias and for family preservation. They warned that clearer legal recognition might normalize live-in relationships and reduce stigma but could also deepen social resistance, especially as such issues spread from urban to rural areas. It was agreed upon for proper legislation to govern these arrangements or keep them distinct from marriage to avoid confusion and exploitation.