{"id":10745,"date":"2025-10-27T07:52:23","date_gmt":"2025-10-27T07:52:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=10745"},"modified":"2025-10-30T01:16:01","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T01:16:01","slug":"legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Implications Of Live-In Relationships In India"},"content":{"rendered":"<article id=\"Legal Implications Of Live-In Relationships In India\">\n<h2 id=\"academic-literature-on-live-in-relationships\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Academic_Literature_on_Live-in_Relationships\"><\/span>Academic Literature on Live-in Relationships<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Academic literature emphasizes that the legitimacy of live-in relationships rests on several factors including duration of cohabitation, mutual commitment, shared household responsibilities, pooling of resources, and social recognition as a couple.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Academic_Literature_on_Live-in_Relationships\" >Academic Literature on Live-in Relationships<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Constitutional_Foundations\" >Constitutional Foundations<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#S_Khushboo_v_Kanniammal_2010\" >S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Interplay_of_Articles_21_and_14\" >Interplay of Articles 21 and 14<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Judicial_Approach_Evolution_and_Analysis\" >Judicial Approach: Evolution and Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Early_Judicial_Pronouncements\" >Early Judicial Pronouncements<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Lata_Singh_v_State_of_UP_2006\" >Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#D_Velusamy_v_D_Patchaiammal_2010\" >D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Scholarly_Analysis_of_Velusamy\" >Scholarly Analysis of Velusamy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Indra_Sarma_v_VKV_Sarma_2013\" >Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Academic_Commentary_on_Indra_Sarma\" >Academic Commentary on Indra Sarma<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Statutory_Provisions_and_Legal_Protection\" >Statutory Provisions and Legal Protection<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Protection_of_Women_from_Domestic_Violence_Act_2005\" >Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Section_125_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure_1973\" >Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Indian_Evidence_Act_1872\" >Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Property_and_Inheritance_Rights\" >Property and Inheritance Rights<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Rights_and_Status_of_Children\" >Rights and Status of Children<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Constitutional_Foundations_Article_21_and_Personal_Liberty\" >Constitutional Foundations: Article 21 and Personal Liberty<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Equality_Under_Article_14\" >Equality Under Article 14<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Presumption_of_Marriage_Indian_Evidence_Act\" >Presumption of Marriage: Indian Evidence Act<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Landmark_Judgment_Badri_Prasad_v_Dy_Director_of_Consolidation_1978\" >Landmark Judgment: Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Inheritance_and_Succession\" >Inheritance and Succession<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Personal_Laws_and_Succession_Acts\" >Personal Laws and Succession Acts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Testamentary_Succession\" >Testamentary Succession<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Presumption_of_Marriage_and_Inheritance\" >Presumption of Marriage and Inheritance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Childrens_Rights\" >Children\u2019s Rights<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Rights_of_Children_Born_from_Live-in_Relationships\" >Rights of Children Born from Live-in Relationships<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Legitimacy\" >Legitimacy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Maintenance_Rights\" >Maintenance Rights<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Inheritance_Rights\" >Inheritance Rights<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Custody_Rights\" >Custody Rights<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Socio-Legal_Challenges\" >Socio-Legal Challenges<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legal-implications-of-live-in-relationships-in-india\/#Way_Forward\" >Way Forward<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>Legal scholars have drawn parallels with the concept of <strong>common law marriage<\/strong> recognized in certain jurisdictions, where prolonged cohabitation coupled with mutual intent creates legal presumptions of marriage.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"constitutional-foundations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Constitutional_Foundations\"><\/span>Constitutional Foundations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The constitutional basis for recognizing live-in relationships derives from <strong>Article 21<\/strong> of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court, through expansive interpretation, has held that personal liberty encompasses the freedom to make intimate decisions about companionship, cohabitation, and marriage without state interference, subject to reasonable restrictions.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"landmark-judgment-s-khushboo-v-kanniammal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"S_Khushboo_v_Kanniammal_2010\"><\/span>S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In this landmark case, the Supreme Court affirmed that adults have the right to live with persons of their choice and that such relationships are protected under Article 21. The Court observed that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201cLive-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This judgment established that the decision to marry or to engage in a heterosexual relationship is <em>\u201cintensely personal\u201d<\/em> and falls within the zone of personal autonomy protected by the Constitution.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"interplay-of-articles-21-and-14\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interplay_of_Articles_21_and_14\"><\/span>Interplay of Articles 21 and 14<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Legal scholars have analyzed the interplay between Article 21 and Article 14 (equality before law) in the context of live-in relationships.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Feminist legal theorists<\/strong> argue that denying legal recognition and protection to women in live-in relationships perpetuates gender inequality and violates constitutional principles of substantive equality.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Conservative legal commentators<\/strong> contend that excessive legal recognition of non-marital relationships may undermine the institution of marriage and erode social stability.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-approach-evolution-and-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Approach_Evolution_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Judicial Approach: Evolution and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Indian judiciary&#8217;s approach to live-in relationships has evolved through several phases \u2014 from initial reluctance to progressive recognition, and subsequently to refined criteria for determining legal validity and protection.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"early-judicial-pronouncements\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Early_Judicial_Pronouncements\"><\/span>Early Judicial Pronouncements<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Early judgments such as <strong>Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan (2001)<\/strong> recognized that cohabitation between consenting adults is not illegal, though it may be considered immoral by certain segments of society. The Court distinguished between legality and morality, affirming that the law cannot punish individuals merely for choosing non-traditional living arrangements.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"lata-singh-v-state-up\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lata_Singh_v_State_of_UP_2006\"><\/span>Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court upheld the validity of inter-caste marriages and extended similar protections to live-in relationships. The Court observed that interference from family members or self-appointed moral vigilantes in such relationships is impermissible and attracts legal consequences.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"d-velusamy-v-d-patchaiammal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"D_Velusamy_v_D_Patchaiammal_2010\"><\/span>D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>This landmark judgment established comprehensive criteria for determining when a live-in relationship qualifies as a \u201crelationship in the nature of marriage\u201d under the <strong>Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<caption><strong>Criteria for a Relationship in the Nature of Marriage (Velusamy Case)<\/strong><\/caption>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Condition<\/th>\n<th>Description<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>The couple must hold themselves out to society as akin to spouses.<\/td>\n<td>Public acknowledgment of relationship as marriage-like.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>They must be of legal age to marry.<\/td>\n<td>Both parties should have attained the legal age for marriage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage.<\/td>\n<td>Neither should be married to another person.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>They must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time.<\/td>\n<td>Consistent and prolonged cohabitation is necessary.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>They must have lived together in a shared household.<\/td>\n<td>Joint residence and shared domestic life are essential.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h3 id=\"scholarly-analysis-of-velusamy\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Scholarly_Analysis_of_Velusamy\"><\/span>Scholarly Analysis of Velusamy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Scholars have highlighted both the progressive nature and limitations of this judgment.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Critics argue that the stringent criteria exclude many vulnerable women, especially those unknowingly involved with married men or those in short-term relationships.<\/li>\n<li>The requirement that parties be \u201cotherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage\u201d denies protection to women in bigamous or adulterous relationships, even where deception was involved.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"indra-sarma-v-vkv-sarma\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Indra_Sarma_v_VKV_Sarma_2013\"><\/span>Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court further refined the legal framework, holding that a woman who knowingly enters into a relationship with a married man cannot claim protection under the Domestic Violence Act. However, the Court created an important exception:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>If a woman is unaware of the man\u2019s marital status, the relationship may still attract certain legal protections.<\/li>\n<li>The Court emphasized the need for legislative reform to protect vulnerable women in long-term relationships outside the strict definition of marriage.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"academic-commentary-on-indra-sarma\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Academic_Commentary_on_Indra_Sarma\"><\/span>Academic Commentary on Indra Sarma<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Academic opinions on this judgment are divided:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Progressive scholars<\/strong> applaud the Court\u2019s sensitivity to deceived women.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Critics<\/strong> argue that the judgment creates ambiguity, leaving some women without adequate protection.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<blockquote><p>The Court\u2019s observation that \u201clive-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country\u201d continues to affirm the constitutional legitimacy of such relationships.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<h2 id=\"statutory-provisions-and-legal-protection\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Provisions_and_Legal_Protection\"><\/span>Statutory Provisions and Legal Protection<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The legal framework governing live-in relationships in India is fragmented, deriving from various statutes that do not explicitly address cohabitation but have been interpreted to extend protection to such relationships.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"protection-of-women-from-domestic-violence-act-2005\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Protection_of_Women_from_Domestic_Violence_Act_2005\"><\/span>Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 defines &#8220;domestic relationship&#8221; to include relationships &#8220;in the nature of marriage.&#8221; This provision has been judicially interpreted to encompass live-in relationships that satisfy the criteria established in <em>Velusamy<\/em> and <em>Indra Sarma<\/em>. Women in such relationships are entitled to protection against:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Physical abuse<\/li>\n<li>Emotional abuse<\/li>\n<li>Sexual abuse<\/li>\n<li>Economic abuse<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>They can seek remedies including protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, and compensation.<\/p>\n<p>Academic analysis of the PWDVA highlights its progressive features in extending protection beyond legally married women. However, scholars note that the definition remains restrictive, excluding:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Women in casual relationships<\/li>\n<li>Women knowingly involved with married men<\/li>\n<li>Potentially same-sex couples<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The requirement of demonstrating a &#8220;relationship in the nature of marriage&#8221; places evidentiary burdens on complainants that may be difficult to discharge.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"section-125-code-of-criminal-procedure-1973\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_125_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure_1973\"><\/span>Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides for maintenance of wives, children, and parents. The Malimath Committee Report (2003) recommended amending the definition of &#8220;wife&#8221; to include women in live-in relationships. Though this recommendation was not legislatively implemented, the Supreme Court in <em>Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha<\/em> (2011) held that women in long-term live-in relationships are entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.<\/p>\n<p>The Court reasoned that where partners live together as husband and wife for a considerable period, a presumption of wedlock arises. The Court observed that denying maintenance to such women would violate principles of gender justice and leave economically vulnerable women without recourse.<\/p>\n<p>Legal scholars have praised this judgment for its expansive interpretation protecting women\u2019s economic rights, though some argue it blurs the distinction between marriage and cohabitation.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"indian-evidence-act-1872\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Indian_Evidence_Act_1872\"><\/span>Indian Evidence Act, 1872<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits courts to presume the existence of certain facts. Judicial interpretation has extended this provision to presume marriage where a man and woman have lived together for a long period. In <em>Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation<\/em> (1978), the Supreme Court held that prolonged cohabitation creates a strong presumption in favor of wedlock, and the burden of disproving this presumption lies heavily on the party challenging the relationship.<\/p>\n<p>This legal presumption serves important protective functions, particularly for:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Children born from long-term relationships<\/li>\n<li>Economically dependent partners<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>However, academic analysis notes that the presumption is rebuttable and may not provide absolute certainty, particularly where formal marriage proof is sought for inheritance or succession purposes.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"property-and-inheritance-rights\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Property_and_Inheritance_Rights\"><\/span>Property and Inheritance Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The legal position concerning property and inheritance rights of partners in live-in relationships remains ambiguous and contested. Unlike married couples who enjoy statutory rights under personal laws and succession statutes, live-in partners generally do not possess automatic property rights over each other&#8217;s assets.<\/p>\n<p>Academic literature distinguishes between:<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Type of Property<\/th>\n<th>Legal Status for Live-in Partners<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Self-acquired Property<\/td>\n<td>May inherit through wills or gift deeds<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Ancestral or Joint Family Property<\/td>\n<td>No automatic succession rights without testamentary disposition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>In <em>Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai<\/em>, the Supreme Court addressed property rights of partners and children in live-in relationships, recognizing limited rights subject to proof of the relationship&#8217;s legitimacy.<\/p>\n<p>Legal scholars argue that the absence of clear property rights creates vulnerability, particularly for economically dependent women who may invest time, labor, and resources in shared households without acquiring legal entitlements. Feminist legal theorists advocate for statutory intervention to recognize property contributions and provide equitable distribution mechanisms upon relationship termination.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"rights-and-status-of-children\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rights_and_Status_of_Children\"><\/span>Rights and Status of Children<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The legal status of children born from live-in relationships has witnessed significant judicial evolution. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers legitimacy upon children born from void or voidable marriages, extending to them rights in their parents&#8217; property. Courts have drawn analogies between children of void marriages and children of live-in relationships, granting legitimacy and inheritance rights in certain circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Tulsa v. Durghatiya<\/em> (2008), the Supreme Court held that children born from live-in relationships are legitimate and entitled to inherit their parents&#8217; property, provided the relationship was of reasonable duration and demonstrated characteristics of a stable union. The Court emphasized that children should not be penalized for the unmarried status of their parents, invoking Article 39(f) of the Constitution which directs state policy toward protecting children&#8217;s welfare.<\/p>\n<p>The landmark judgment in <em>Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun<\/em> (2011, clarified by a larger bench in 2023) addressed the inheritance rights of children born from void or voidable marriages, holding that such children are entitled to their parents&#8217; share in joint family property through notional partition but are not coparceners by birth. This principle has been extended by analogy to children of live-in relationships, though the legal position remains subject to factual determination of the relationship&#8217;s nature.<\/p>\n<p>Scholarly analysis emphasizes that children of live-in relationships enjoy rights to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, reflecting the principle that children&#8217;s welfare transcends their parents&#8217; marital status. However, critics note that social stigma and practical difficulties in proving parentage and relationship legitimacy may hinder enforcement of these rights.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"constitutional-foundations-article-21-and-personal-liberty\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Constitutional_Foundations_Article_21_and_Personal_Liberty\"><\/span>Constitutional Foundations: Article 21 and Personal Liberty<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The legal recognition of live-in relationships in India finds its primary foundation in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which declares: <em>&#8220;No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.&#8221;<\/em> Through decades of progressive judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has transformed Article 21 from a mere procedural safeguard against arbitrary deprivation into a substantive guarantee of human dignity, autonomy, and freedom.<\/p>\n<p>The expansive interpretation of &#8220;personal liberty&#8221; has encompassed various unarticulated rights including:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Right to privacy<\/li>\n<li>Right to dignity<\/li>\n<li>Right to livelihood<\/li>\n<li>Right to personal autonomy in making intimate decisions about relationships, companionship, and living arrangements<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Supreme Court has consistently held that matters of marriage, procreation, and family life fall within the protected zone of privacy and personal liberty, immune from arbitrary state interference or social vigilantism.<\/p>\n<p>The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, decency, or morality. However, courts have consistently held that such restrictions must meet rigorous tests of proportionality and necessity and must not violate the essence of fundamental rights. Blanket criminalization or social persecution of live-in relationships would fail these constitutional tests.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"equality-under-article-14\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Equality_Under_Article_14\"><\/span>Equality Under Article 14<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Furthermore, Article 14 of the Constitution, guaranteeing equality before law and equal protection of laws, assumes significance in the context of live-in relationships. Denying legal protection and remedies to women in such relationships solely based on the absence of formal marriage would constitute arbitrary discrimination violative of Article 14.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court has recognized that constitutional guarantees of equality require substantive protection for all vulnerable individuals regardless of the formal legal status of their relationships.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 id=\"presumption-of-marriage-indian-evidence-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Presumption_of_Marriage_Indian_Evidence_Act\"><\/span>Presumption of Marriage: Indian Evidence Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits courts to presume certain facts based on common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business. Judicial interpretation has extended this provision to create a presumption of marriage where a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a long period.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"badri-prasad-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Landmark_Judgment_Badri_Prasad_v_Dy_Director_of_Consolidation_1978\"><\/span>Landmark Judgment: <em>Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978)<\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>\u201cA strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. To establish that they were not married it is not enough to prove that the ceremony cannot be proved. The factum of continuous living together as man and wife for a long time raises the presumption.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The presumption of marriage arising from cohabitation reflects the common law concept of \u201ccommon law marriage,\u201d where legal recognition flows from factual cohabitation rather than formal ceremony. While Hindu law traditionally requires ceremonial rites for valid marriage, the presumption recognizes practical realities where proof of ceremony may be unavailable due to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Passage of time<\/li>\n<li>Lack of documentation<\/li>\n<li>Informal customary practices<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>However, the applicability of this presumption to contemporary live-in relationships remains complex. Courts distinguish between historical cases involving long cohabitation without documentary proof of marriage and modern live-in relationships where parties consciously choose not to marry. The presumption is more readily applied where parties lived together as husband and wife without questioning their marital status, rather than where they deliberately opted for cohabitation as an alternative to marriage.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 id=\"inheritance-and-succession\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Inheritance_and_Succession\"><\/span>Inheritance and Succession<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The legal framework governing inheritance and succession in live-in relationships is complex and varies significantly from rights available to married couples.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"personal-laws-and-succession-acts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Personal_Laws_and_Succession_Acts\"><\/span>Personal Laws and Succession Acts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Law<\/th>\n<th>Recognition of Live-in Partners<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Hindu Succession Act, 1956<\/td>\n<td>Does not recognize live-in partners as legal heirs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Muslim Personal Law<\/td>\n<td>Inheritance restricted to lawful spouses and blood relations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Christian Personal Law<\/td>\n<td>Inheritance rights limited to legitimate spouses and descendants<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h3 id=\"testamentary-succession\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Testamentary_Succession\"><\/span>Testamentary Succession<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Live-in partners can ensure inheritance through valid wills. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 permits testators to bequeath property to any person of their choice, including live-in partners. A validly executed will naming the partner as beneficiary is enforceable, though it may face challenges from legal heirs on grounds of:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Undue influence<\/li>\n<li>Lack of testamentary capacity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"presumption-of-marriage-and-inheritance\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Presumption_of_Marriage_and_Inheritance\"><\/span>Presumption of Marriage and Inheritance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Where courts apply the presumption of marriage based on long-term cohabitation (as per <em>Badri Prasad<\/em>), the surviving partner may claim inheritance rights as a spouse. However, this requires satisfying stringent evidentiary requirements and may be contested by other legal heirs.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"childrens-rights\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Childrens_Rights\"><\/span>Children\u2019s Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>A critical distinction exists concerning children\u2019s inheritance rights. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers legitimacy upon children born from void or voidable marriages, granting them rights in parents&#8217; property. Courts have extended this principle to children of live-in relationships in certain cases.<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Case<\/th>\n<th>Key Holding<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><em>Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008)<\/em><\/td>\n<td>Children born from live-in relationships are legitimate and entitled to inherit their parents\u2019 property.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><em>Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2011, clarified 2023)<\/em><\/td>\n<td>Children born from void marriages are entitled to their parents\u2019 share in joint family property but not coparcenary rights.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Thus, children of live-in relationships can inherit their parents\u2019 self-acquired property and the parents\u2019 share in ancestral property, but do not acquire coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family property.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rights_of_Children_Born_from_Live-in_Relationships\"><\/span>Rights of Children Born from Live-in Relationships<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The legal status and rights of children born from live-in relationships have evolved significantly through judicial interpretation, reflecting constitutional commitments to child welfare and equality.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"legitimacy\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legitimacy\"><\/span>Legitimacy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Indian courts have progressively recognized children born from live-in relationships as legitimate, rejecting the traditional distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan:<\/strong> The Supreme Court held that Section 114 of the Evidence Act creates a presumption that children born to parents living together for a long period are legitimate.<\/li>\n<li><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalservicesindia.com\/article\/1622\/Status-of-Children-born-in-Live-in-Relationships.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan (2010)<\/a>:<\/strong> The Court upheld that children born from live-in relationships are legitimate and entitled to inheritance rights. It observed that the Hindu Marriage Act aims to remove the stigma of illegitimacy and protect children\u2019s welfare.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"maintenance-rights\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Maintenance_Rights\"><\/span>Maintenance Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Section 125 of the <em>Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)<\/em> entitles all children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to claim maintenance from parents. Section 21 of the <em>Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956<\/em> obligates fathers to maintain their children, whether born from valid marriages or otherwise.<\/p>\n<p>Courts have consistently held that children of live-in relationships cannot be denied maintenance based on their parents&#8217; unmarried status. The Supreme Court has emphasized that children&#8217;s welfare is paramount and transcends the nature of parental relationships.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"inheritance-rights\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Inheritance_Rights\"><\/span>Inheritance Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>As discussed above, children born from live-in relationships have inheritance rights in their parents&#8217; property. Section 16(3) of the <em>Hindu Marriage Act<\/em> limits such rights to \u201cproperty of parents,\u201d but courts have interpreted this broadly to include:<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Type of Property<\/th>\n<th>Judicial Interpretation<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Self-acquired Property<\/td>\n<td>Children of live-in relationships are entitled to inherit their parent\u2019s self-acquired property.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Joint Family Property<\/td>\n<td>Courts recognize their right to the parent\u2019s notional share in joint family property.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>In <strong>Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai<\/strong>, the Supreme Court granted children of a live-in relationship the status of \u201clegal heirs\u201d entitled to inherit their father\u2019s property. The Court held that denying such rights would violate Article 39(f) of the Constitution, which mandates protection of children from exploitation and abandonment.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"custody-rights\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Custody_Rights\"><\/span>Custody Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In custody disputes involving children of live-in relationships, courts apply the paramount consideration of the child\u2019s welfare. The <em>Guardians and Wards Act, 1890<\/em> and personal laws governing guardianship do not distinguish between children of married and unmarried parents.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The mere fact of a live-in relationship does not render a parent unfit for custody.<\/li>\n<li>Court decisions focus on the child\u2019s best interests, including:\n<ul>\n<li>Emotional bonding<\/li>\n<li>Financial stability<\/li>\n<li>Educational environment<\/li>\n<li>Overall welfare<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The legal discourse on live-in relationships in India reflects the tension between evolving social realities and a legal system still anchored in traditional notions of marriage and family. While the judiciary has played a proactive role in extending recognition to such relationships, the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework has left many questions unresolved.<\/p>\n<p>Through landmark judgments such as <a href=\"\/legal\/article-10718-live-in-relationship-laws-in-india.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal<\/strong>, <strong>D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal<\/strong><\/a>, and <a href=\"\/legal\/article-14840-landmark-supreme-court-judgment-indra-sharma-vs-v-k-v-sharma-live-in-relationships-and-women-s-rights-under-the-protection-of-women-from-domestic-violence-act-2005.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma<\/strong><\/a>, the Supreme Court has clarified that live-in relationships are not illegal and may, in certain circumstances, attract legal protections under the <em>Domestic Violence Act<\/em> and maintenance provisions. These decisions have been instrumental in safeguarding the rights of women and children, particularly in contexts of abandonment, domestic violence, and inheritance.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"socio-legal-challenges\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Socio-Legal_Challenges\"><\/span>Socio-Legal Challenges<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Live-in couples often face moral policing, housing discrimination, and ostracism, reflecting the deep-rooted conservatism of Indian society. Intersectional vulnerabilities\u2014such as caste, religion, and gender\u2014further complicate the lived experiences of such couples.<\/p>\n<p>While the judiciary has attempted to balance constitutional rights with societal morality, the absence of legislative clarity perpetuates ambiguity and reinforces dependence on judicial discretion.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"way-forward\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Way_Forward\"><\/span>Way Forward<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Ultimately, the recognition of live-in relationships is not about undermining marriage but about acknowledging diverse forms of human intimacy and companionship in a modern society. The law must evolve to reflect these realities, ensuring that individuals who choose to cohabit are not left in a legal vacuum.<\/p>\n<p>By moving beyond piecemeal judicial interventions and embracing a balanced legislative approach, India can create a family law framework that is inclusive, equitable, and responsive to the changing contours of personal relationships.<\/p>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Academic Literature on Live-in Relationships Academic literature emphasizes that the legitimacy of live-in relationships rests on several factors including duration of cohabitation, mutual commitment, shared household responsibilities, pooling of resources, and social recognition as a couple. Legal scholars have drawn parallels with the concept of common law marriage recognized in certain jurisdictions, where prolonged cohabitation<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":653,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[775],"class_list":{"0":"post-10745","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-family-law","7":"tag-constitutional-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10745","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/653"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10745"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10745\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}