Law Does Not Recognise Live-in Relationships as Marriage, Only Weddings Performed Under Personal, Secular Law: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the law does not recognize live-in relationships as marriage; Only weddings celebrated in accordance with personal or secular laws are considered a legal union.

Therefore, a couple living together under an agreement cannot claim to be a marriage nor seek a divorce based on this, the Supreme Court said. Appeal against the Family Court’s order to reject their application for divorce on the grounds that their marriage was not formalized under the Special Marriage Act.

The couple, one Hindu and the other Christian, have been living together since 2006 under a registered agreement and have a child of 16 years. Since they no longer wanted to continue their relationship, they took the family court for divorce.

In adjudicating their appeal, the Supreme Court said, “The law has not yet recognized the live-in relationship as a marriage. The law only grants recognition if the marriage is formally consummated in accordance with the Personal Status Law or in accordance with secular law such as the Private Marriage Law.”

“If the parties decide to live together by agreement, that in and of itself will not entitle them to claim it as a marriage and to claim a divorce from it.” The Supreme Court said that while there may be a situation in which such a relationship qualifies as creating a mutual obligation or duties elsewhere, this does not mean that it can be recognized for the purpose of divorce.

The authority further said that the law related to divorce is special in our country and designated through legislation.

The extrajudicial divorce that was pursued in some societies was also recognized by statutory laws. All other forms of divorce are of a legal nature.

“The law does not recognize or allow the parties to divorce unless they are married in accordance with the recognized form of marriage applicable under personal status law or secular law,” it said in its June 8 order.

The Supreme Court also held that in the present case, the Family Court did not have jurisdiction to hear this separation claim in the first place, and instead of dismissing the couple’s petition, it should have reinstated the petition by saying it was not tenable. .

“Family Court legislation was enacted to resolve all disputes relating to marriage and family matters. The marriage referred to in the preamble to the Family Court Act is indicative only of marriage as recognized by the law.

“Any marriage entered into between the parties by contract, which has not yet received any recognition under the law for the purpose of granting a divorce. In such circumstances, the family court also does not have jurisdiction to hear such divorce action.”

It directed the Family Court to reinstate the couple’s petition which it asserted could not be maintained.

“The parties shall be given freedom to act on its remedy elsewhere. Accordingly, this appeal shall be adjudicated.”

(This story was not edited by the News18 staff and was published from a syndicated news agency feed – PTI)