Status of a Child Born Out of a Live-In Relationship in India: What Does the Law Say?

The nature of family relationships in India has changed considerably over the years. Live-in relationships between consenting adults are increasingly recognised by Indian courts, even though there is still no single central legislation that comprehensively governs every aspect of such relationships.

One of the most important questions that arises from such relationships is: What is the legal status of a child born to parents who are not formally married?

Does the child have a right to maintenance? Can the child inherit the father's property? What happens to ancestral property? And does the absence of a formal marriage affect the child's legal identity?

Indian courts have increasingly adopted a child-centric approach, recognising that a child should not be disadvantaged merely because of the circumstances of the parents' relationship. However, the answer is not as simple as saying that every child born from every live-in relationship automatically has exactly the same inheritance rights as a child born within a valid marriage.

The distinction between a live-in relationship, a presumed marriage, and a void or voidable marriage is particularly important.

Is a Live-In Relationship Legal in India?

There is no general prohibition against two consenting adults choosing to live together without marrying.

The Supreme Court has recognised the autonomy of consenting adults to choose their personal relationships. Courts have also recognised that long-term cohabitation may, depending on the facts, give rise to a presumption of marriage.

In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, the Supreme Court observed that when a man and woman live together as husband and wife for a considerable period, a presumption may arise in favour of marriage, and children born from such a relationship should not ordinarily be treated as illegitimate. This principle was discussed again by the Supreme Court in Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors.

Importantly, however, long cohabitation does not automatically convert every live-in relationship into a legal marriage. Courts examine the facts and circumstances of each case.

What Is the Legal Status of a Child Born from a Live-In Relationship?

The law increasingly seeks to protect the child from the consequences of the parents' relationship.

The Supreme Court has recognised that children should not be penalised for circumstances over which they have no control. In cases involving long-standing relationships resembling marriage, courts have therefore been willing to protect the child's legitimacy and property rights.

But there is an important legal distinction.

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 specifically deals with children of void and voidable marriages. It does not simply state that every child born from an unmarried live-in relationship automatically becomes a child of a valid marriage.

Therefore, when dealing with a particular case, courts may have to examine the nature of the relationship, the evidence regarding the parties' status, and the applicable personal law.

The Landmark Case: Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan

One of the important Supreme Court decisions in this area is Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors., decided on 17 May 2010.

The case involved two children born from a relationship between Rengammal and Muthu Reddiar. Rengammal was alleged to have already been married to another man. The dispute ultimately concerned the children's claim to property.

The Supreme Court considered the legal effect of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the question of whether children born from such a relationship could inherit ancestral coparcenary property.

The Court held, based on the law as it then stood, that children born from a void or voidable marriage could claim rights in the self-acquired property of their parents, but not in ancestral coparcenary property. In the particular case, the property in dispute was joint family/coparcenary property, and the Court therefore rejected the children's claim to inheritance in that property. 

The judgment also discussed the principle that long-term cohabitation can, in appropriate circumstances, support a presumption that a couple lived as husband and wife.

Why is this case important?

For many years, Bharatha Matha was an important authority when discussing the property rights of children born from void or voidable marriages and relationships resembling marriage.

However, there is an important update that should not be overlooked when discussing this case today.

The Law Changed with the Supreme Court's 2023 Decision

The legal position concerning ancestral property subsequently underwent a significant change.

In Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors., decided by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on 1 September 2023, the Court reconsidered the earlier line of decisions, including Bharatha Matha.

The Supreme Court specifically noted that earlier decisions such as Jinia Keotin, Neelamma, and Bharatha Matha had taken the view that children covered by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act could not inherit ancestral coparcenary property and were limited to their parents' self-acquired property.

The 2023 judgment changed that position for children covered by Section 16(1) and 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court held that such children are entitled to rights in the property of their parents, including the parents' interest in ancestral property governed by the Mitakshara joint-family system. However, the right remains confined to the property of the parents; the child does not acquire rights in the property of other relatives merely by virtue of being the child of a void or voidable marriage.

This is a crucial distinction when discussing the present legal position.

Does the 2023 Judgment Mean Every Child Born from a Live-In Relationship Can Claim Ancestral Property?

Not automatically.

This is perhaps the most important clarification.

The 2023 Revanasiddappa judgment dealt with children covered by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, namely children of marriages that are void or voidable in the circumstances contemplated by the statute. It should not be casually interpreted as declaring that every child born from every form of live-in relationship automatically becomes a coparcener in every Hindu ancestral property.

A live-in relationship is not necessarily a marriage—valid, void, or voidable.

Consequently, in a real property dispute, the court may need to determine questions such as:

• What was the nature and duration of the relationship?

• Was there evidence of a marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage?

• Was either party already legally married?

• What is the applicable personal law?

• What is the nature of the property?

• Is the property self-acquired or ancestral/coparcenary?

• Has the parent's interest in the joint family property already been determined through partition or succession?

The answer can therefore vary considerably depending on the facts.

Right to Maintenance

Irrespective of complicated inheritance questions, a child's right to be supported by the parents is an important legal protection.

The marital status of the parents should not be used to deprive a child of basic necessities such as food, education, healthcare and other reasonable needs.

The law relating to maintenance has evolved considerably to ensure that children are not left without financial support simply because their parents were not formally married.

For a particular maintenance claim, however, the applicable statutory provision and the personal circumstances of the parties need to be examined.

What About Birth Certificates and Identity Documents?

The absence of a marriage certificate does not mean that a child cannot have a legal identity.

A child born to unmarried or live-in parents can have their birth registered and can obtain identity and other official documents in accordance with applicable procedures.

Where paternity is disputed, the issue can become more complicated and may require documentary or other legally admissible evidence. Courts also exercise caution when dealing with DNA testing, particularly because determining biological parentage can have significant consequences for family relationships and legal rights.

Custody and Guardianship: The Child's Welfare Comes First

Under Section 6(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the mother is the first natural guardian of a Hindu child born outside marriage, followed by the father. However, natural guardianship does not automatically determine physical custody. The welfare and best interests of the child remain paramount.

In ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015), the Supreme Court recognised that an unwed mother could seek guardianship without necessarily disclosing the father's identity or obtaining his consent, particularly where she was the child's sole caregiver. The judgment also emphasised the mother's privacy and the child's welfare.

Where parents have lived together for a long period as husband and wife, courts may, depending on the evidence, presume a marriage. In Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999), the Supreme Court clarified that the word "after" in Section 6(a) does not make the father an automatically superior guardian; the mother can also act as a natural guardian when the father is absent or not exercising his parental responsibilities.

Ultimately, courts may consider the child's age, safety, emotional and physical well-being, education, relationship with each parent, primary caregiving arrangements, and the child's own preference where the child is sufficiently mature. The marital status of the parents is only one factor, the child's welfare remains the overriding consideration.

Can a Child Inherit from Other Relatives?

This is where people often misunderstand the law.

The protections available to a child in relation to the property of the parents do not automatically mean that the child acquires inheritance rights in the property of every other relative.

The Supreme Court's 2023 Revanasiddappa decision expressly maintained the statutory limitation that the child's property rights under Section 16 are confined to the property of the parents, and not the property of persons other than the parents.

Therefore, claims involving grandparents, uncles, aunts or other relatives can raise different legal questions.

Why the Distinction Between "Live-In Relationship" and "Void Marriage" Matters

The terms are sometimes used interchangeably in public discussions, but legally they are not necessarily the same.

A valid marriage creates a recognised marital relationship.

A void marriage is one that the law treats as invalid from the beginning under the relevant statutory conditions.

A voidable marriage remains valid unless and until it is annulled by a court.

A live-in relationship may involve two adults choosing to cohabit without entering into a marriage at all.

The legal rights of a child may therefore depend on which of these situations actually exists.

This is why simply stating that "children born out of live-in relationships have all the same inheritance rights as children born within marriage" can be an over-simplification.

The Larger Principle: A Child Should Not Bear the Consequences of the Parents' Relationship

Despite these legal distinctions, Indian jurisprudence has increasingly moved towards a humane and child-centric principle.

A child does not choose:

• whether their parents marry,

• whether their parents separate,

• whether a marriage is legally valid,

• or what circumstances existed when the child was born.

Courts have therefore attempted to ensure that children are not deprived of basic legal protection because of the conduct or marital status of their parents.

The journey from the 2010 Bharatha Matha decision to the 2023 Revanasiddappa judgment illustrates how Indian family law has evolved in this direction.

Conclusion

The legal status of children born from live-in relationships in India is an evolving area of family and succession law.

The Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan (2010) judgment is an important part of this legal history. At that time, the Supreme Court held that children covered by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act could inherit their parents' self-acquired property but could not claim ancestral coparceny property. 

The subsequent Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023) decision significantly changed the position concerning children covered by Section 16, recognising their rights in their parents' property, including the parents' interest in ancestral property, while maintaining the limitation that they cannot claim property belonging to persons other than their parents,

For families dealing with an actual dispute, however, the question cannot be answered simply by saying that a child was "born out of a live-in relationship." The nature of the relationship, the legal status of the parents, the applicable personal law, and the nature and ownership of the property all matter.

The law continues to evolve, but one principle remains increasingly clear: a child should not be made to suffer legal disadvantage merely because of circumstances created by the adults who brought the child into the world.

---

The Author :

Dr. Sunil Khattri 

sunilkhattri@gmail.com

+91 9811618704

Dr Sunil Khattri MBBS, MS(General Surgery), LLB, is a Medical doctor and is a practicing Advocate in the Supreme Court of India and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.