Skip to content

Indian Exam Hub

Building The Largest Database For Students of India & World

Menu
  • Main Website
  • Free Mock Test
  • Fee Courses
  • Live News
  • Indian Polity
  • Shop
  • Cart
    • Checkout
  • Checkout
  • Youtube
Menu

Cohabitation

Posted on October 15, 2025 by user

Introduction

Cohabitation — commonly described as two persons living together in the same house — has acquired outsized legal significance in India over the last two decades. What began as a social phenomenon is now a recurring issue in family law, criminal law practice, public law (privacy/choice) and statutory domestic-violence litigation. For practitioners, the focal questions are (a) when does mere cohabitation convert into a legally cognisable “relationship in the nature of marriage” or a “domestic relationship”; (b) what remedies become available to a woman who cohabits; and (c) what evidence will persuade a court one way or the other. This article maps the statutory and judicial terrain and provides practice-oriented guidance for litigators handling matters that pivot on cohabitation.

Core Legal Framework

Primary statutes and definitions:
– Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“PWDVA”)
– Section 2(f) — “domestic relationship”: quoted key part — “domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by…through a relationship in the nature of marriage…” (emphasis supplied). This phrase is the statutory anchor for disputes about cohabitation.
– Section 2(s) — “shared household”: quoted key part — “shared household means a household where the aggrieved person lives or at any stage has lived with the respondent in a domestic relationship… and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted by the respondent… or by any person who is a member of the family of the respondent.”
– Section 3 — definition of “domestic violence”: broadly covers physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse — the substantive matrix through which reliefs flow once a domestic relationship (or relationship in nature of marriage) is established.
– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
– Section 125 Cr.P.C. — maintenance: historically framed in terms of “wife”/“children”/“parents” but courts have, in certain situations, addressed maintenance issues for women who lived with partners in a relationship akin to marriage (normally via PWDVA remedies or on principles of equity).
– Criminal law: IPC provisions previously treated certain extramarital sex acts as offences (notably Section 497, now struck down). Since the Supreme Court’s subsequent jurisprudence, consensual cohabitation per se is not a criminal offence.
– Constitutional law
– Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and the right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy) underpin the individual autonomy to choose intimate partners and the attendant protection against intrusive criminalisation.

Note on statutory interplay: There is no single statute titled or governing “cohabitation.” The practical consequences of cohabitation are produced by the PWDVA (when a domestic relationship is found), by maintenance and custody jurisprudence, and by constitutional law protecting choice and privacy.

Explore More Resources

  • › Read more Government Exam Guru
  • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
  • › Live News Updates
  • › Read Books For Free

Practical Application and Nuances

How courts treat cohabitation turns on fact-sensitive enquiry. The recurring practical issues and how they are litigated:

  1. Two legal categories practitioners must distinguish
  2. Casual/occasional cohabitation (visits, staying for short spells, or a persecutory cohabitation): unlikely to attract family-law remedies.
  3. Relationship “in the nature of marriage” or “domestic relationship”: treated as equivalent to a marital/conjugal relation for the limited purposes of PWDVA and related remedies.

  4. Tests and indicia used by courts (date-tested by judgments; see next section)

    Explore More Resources

    • › Read more Government Exam Guru
    • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
    • › Live News Updates
    • › Read Books For Free
  5. Habitual living together in a common household;
  6. Public reputation of partners as husband/wife or couple;
  7. Pooling of resources and financial interdependence;
  8. Shared domestic arrangements (cooking, bills, joint bank accounts, tenancy or ownership);
  9. Sexual relationship, children born of relationship;
  10. Intention and stability (not necessarily measured by fixed duration but by qualitative elements above).

  11. Evidence that establishes cohabitation and relationship-in-nature-of-marriage

  12. Primary/Documentary evidence:
    • Rent agreement/lease, electricity/water bills in both or common names, joint bank accounts, mutual insurance/EPF records, joint investments.
    • Letters, emails, WhatsApp chats where they address each other as husband/wife or refer to sharing a life.
    • Birth certificate of child naming both parents; school records.
    • Photographs showing shared household life; party photos where couple identified publicly.
  13. Secondary/Testimonial evidence:
    • Neighbour testimony about them living together and being regarded as husband and wife.
    • Employer testimony about leave taken to be together, or workplace correspondences.
    • Affidavits by friends/family corroborating reputation and conduct.
  14. Negative evidence (for respondents defending against DV claims):

    Explore More Resources

    • › Read more Government Exam Guru
    • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
    • › Live News Updates
    • › Read Books For Free
    • Separate utility accounts, contemporaneous proof of separate residences, tenancy in third party’s name with limited access, proof of limited duration visits only, absence of pooling of finances.
  15. How cohabitation is argued in different proceedings

  16. Domestic Violence (PWDVA) petition by an aggrieved woman:
    • Frame the pleadings to show “shared household” + “domestic relationship” using the indicia above.
    • Prayers to seek protection order, residence order, monetary relief, custody/maintenance for children.
    • Emphasize continuous habitation and reputation in the neighbourhood; rely on documentary proof and immediate neighbours as witnesses.
  17. Maintenance claims (criminal or civil routes):
    • If framed under Section 125 CrPC, show dependency and inability to maintain; if under PWDVA, prove domestic relationship.
    • Where PWDVA is used, maintenance flows from the protection order regime — applicant must prove relationship falls within Section 2(f).
  18. Child custody and welfare disputes:
    • The child’s welfare is paramount; cohabitation evidence helps establish parentage, home environment, financial arrangements, and primary caregiver status.
  19. Criminal prosecutions alleging abetment, cruelty or outraging modesty:

    • Cohabitation per se is not a crime. But alleged acts (threats, physical assault, abetment to suicide) arising within the cohabitation can be separately charged. The defence strategy will separate consensual cohabitation from alleged criminal acts.
  20. Nuances frequently litigated

    Explore More Resources

    • › Read more Government Exam Guru
    • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
    • › Live News Updates
    • › Read Books For Free
  21. Duration v. quality: Courts have repeatedly rejected an absolute minimum duration; sustained relationship features are more important.
  22. Reputation: Public perception can be decisive—courts will treat neighbours’ testimony on how the couple were addressed.
  23. Marriage intent: An intention to marry in future is relevant but not decisive; the real question is whether the relationship bore the hallmarks of marriage.
  24. Temporary shelter or protection: If parties cohabit for safety reasons (e.g., one partner fleeing a violent family), courts will examine circumstances and may still grant relief under PWDVA.
  25. Fraudulent cohabitation (where a partner falsely represents marriage or intentions): Courts examine misrepresentation as part of abuse and economic exploitation.

Landmark Judgments

  • D. Velusamy & Anr. v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469
  • Principle: The Supreme Court identified a list of indicia to determine whether a relationship qualifies as “in the nature of marriage” (habitual cohabitation, shared household, pooling of finances, reputation in society, and taking care of each other). The Court accepted the possibility of protecting women in stable live-in relationships under the PWDVA.
  • Practice point: Velusamy is the primary authority for the multi-factor test; practitioners should map facts to the Velusamy indicia in pleadings.

  • Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 755

  • Principle: The Supreme Court cautioned that not every live-in relationship falls within “relationship in the nature of marriage.” The Court catalogued different categories of live-in arrangements and held that only those with marriage-like attributes attract PWDVA protection.
  • Practice point: Use Indra Sarma to counter blanket claims — show absence of marriage-like attributes where defending.

    Explore More Resources

    • › Read more Government Exam Guru
    • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
    • › Live News Updates
    • › Read Books For Free
  • Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475

  • Principle: The Supreme Court underscored the fundamental right of adults to choose their partners and condemned honour crimes. While not a case on cohabitation per se, Lata Singh supports the constitutional autonomy to enter relationships.
  • Practice point: Useful to rely upon where cohabitation has been criminalised in practice or where police inaction/overreach occurs.

  • K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Judgment) (2017) — Right to privacy

    Explore More Resources

    • › Read more Government Exam Guru
    • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
    • › Live News Updates
    • › Read Books For Free
  • Principle: The right to privacy under Article 21 protects intimate decisions, including choice of partner and living arrangements.
  • Practice point: Privacy jurisprudence buttresses arguments against criminalisation or intrusive state interference in consensual cohabitation.

  • Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

  • Principle: The Supreme Court struck down the offence of adultery (Section 497 IPC) as unconstitutional; consensual sexual relations between consenting adults, including when one or both are married, cannot be criminalised by that provision.
  • Practice point: Criminal prosecution for consensual intimate relations (where no other offence is made out) is no longer a live option in most circumstances.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

For Petitioners (aggrieved persons seeking relief)
– Build a cumulative, contemporaneous documentary narrative: early evidence (photos, chats, joint bills, rent receipts) is more persuasive than later-cooked documents.
– Use immediate neighbours and family as witnesses to reputation and continuous habitation; seek judicial directions for interim relief (protection orders, residence orders) early.
– If the client has a child, secure a birth certificate listing parentage — courts treat this as strong proof.
– Frame alternative reliefs: plead PWDVA reliefs as primary and, if relevant, claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as alternative (depending on facts and local practice).

Explore More Resources

  • › Read more Government Exam Guru
  • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
  • › Live News Updates
  • › Read Books For Free

For Respondents (defending cohabitation-based claims)
– Attack the quality and continuity of cohabitation: exhibit separate addresses, calendar entries showing visits only, tenancy in third-party names, lack of pooling of finances.
– Expose inconsistencies in the complainant’s story and timing of the complaint (after a breakup or after a family demand).
– Present character witnesses and community evidence to show absence of reputation as husband and wife.
– Where the respondent is accused of criminal acts, separate the consensual relationship defence from the alleged criminal conduct; do not conflate the two.

Cross-cutting tactical points
– Avoid moralising arguments: courts are guided by legal tests, not morality. Focus on factual matrix and legal indices.
– Preserve digital evidence: take forensic steps to preserve WhatsApp chats, social-media content and photographs; courts increasingly admit electronic evidence under the Evidence Act when properly authenticated.
– Anticipate public-order or family backlash: seek police protection orders and invoke Shakti Vahini / other preventive directions where threats of honour violence exist.
– Child welfare is paramount: if custody is involved, collect evidence on primary caregiving, stability and the child’s best interests rather than litigating only on reputational grounds.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid
– Over-reliance on duration alone: do not insist on a fixed minimum period of cohabitation; courts look at qualitative factors.
– Fabricated evidence: courts routinely test veracity; forged documents and manufactured witnesses may backfire.
– Treating cohabitation as a crime: aggressively litigating under criminal law for consensual cohabitation is a losing strategy post-Puttaswamy and Joseph Shine.
– Ignoring jurisdictional procedure: PWDVA matters are summary and time-sensitive. Failure to seek interim reliefs promptly can deprive the client of effective protection.

Explore More Resources

  • › Read more Government Exam Guru
  • › Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
  • › Live News Updates
  • › Read Books For Free

Checklist for a PWDVA petition based on cohabitation
– Chronology of relationship and habitation with dates/addresses.
– Documentary proof: rent/utility bills, joint accounts, birth certificate, photographs.
– List of proposed witnesses (neighbours, friends, employer).
– Particulars of alleged abuse (physical, sexual, economic, emotional) with supporting instances.
– Interim reliefs sought (protection order, residence order, monetary relief, custody/maintenance).
– Preservation steps for digital evidence.

Conclusion

Cohabitation in India sits at the intersection of private autonomy, family protection and statutory remedies. The legal landscape recognises that while consensual cohabitation is not a crime, a sustained relationship carrying the attributes of marriage can trigger the protective machinery of the PWDVA and related reliefs. For practitioners the task is forensic: to fit facts to the established indicia (Velusamy/Indra Sarma), marshal contemporaneous, corroborative evidence of shared life, and to craft remedies that protect vulnerable partners and children without inviting extraneous moral judgments. Whether advancing or resisting claims based on cohabitation, the winning strategy is documentary proof, credible witnesses, early interim reliefs, and reliance on the mature line of constitutional and Supreme Court jurisprudence that privileges autonomy and the safety of persons living together.

Youtube / Audibook / Free Courese

  • Financial Terms
  • Geography
  • Indian Law Basics
  • Internal Security
  • International Relations
  • Uncategorized
  • World Economy
Federal Reserve BankOctober 16, 2025
Economy Of TuvaluOctober 15, 2025
MagmatismOctober 14, 2025
Real EstateOctober 16, 2025
OrderOctober 15, 2025
Warrant OfficerOctober 15, 2025