In 1927 seems to be true as Chief justice of one country is forcibly removed from chair and apex Court of another has duly exercised its power on several occasions to declare the decisions of other two pillars of government as ultra vires, dictator of previous roared “Constitution is a 12 page book which can be torn anytime” whereas Supreme Court of latter sent a former dictator to imprisonment for suspending the constitution that is why the former is on 12th position in the “Failed States Index” of Foreign Policy Magazine whereas the latter is Emerging Superpower.

This is the tale of two countries namely India and Pakistan, both of them gained independence from slavery of centuries and with wounds of partition, communal hatred, riots and poverty but judiciary of latter thereby upholding the faith of people in the values of democracy declared the dissolution of even a provincial assembly as unconstitutional on the other hand the former had a history of every elected government being toppled by the dictators before completing its term.

The reason for all this is that one has the longest constitution of the world and the constitution of the other has been changed entirely twice since independence which is the reason that the latter is the largest democracy of world and the former had seen Marshal Law in 35 out of 60 years of independence i.e. majority of time as a nation it has been ruled by dictators.

Our constitution provides clear separation of powers of all the three wings of government namely legislature, executive and judiciary with all having separate domains and measures of checks and counter checks on each other. Our national leaders of freedom struggle realized that “No free government can survive that is not based on the supremacy of law” as in scripted on the Justice department building in Washington states so they felt the need of an impartial, sovereign and responsible institution to which the powers to administer justice and the function to uphold the supremacy of law could be delegated and which would be vigilant to other organs encroaching on citizens’ rights and subverting the Constitution.

This resulted in founding of The Supreme Court and a judiciary which is completely separated from legislature and executive in exercising its judicial functions and thereby deviating from the tradition of U.K. as our entire parliamentary system is taken from U.K. where the Supreme Court is the House Of Lords and is a part of legislature.

Comparing this setup with our setup, our Supreme Court is not a part of legislature so it can not only preside over dispute between the Union and State but can also review the executive as well as legislative action of arbitrariness and thereby can protect the voice of minority section of society rising against the atrocities committed on them by the government and thereby uphold the principles of natural justice that one can’t be a judge in its own cause.

To realize this goal of theirs the framers of the Constitution took infinite care to provide for an independent and impartial judiciary as the interpreter of the Constitution and the custodian of the rights of the citizens and Indian Constitution, which executes the said function through the process of judicial review over the acts of the legislature and the executive, which gives the mandate to the judiciary to interpret the laws but it should not be misunderstood as the Constitution does not contemplate a Super-organ nor confers an over-riding authority on any one organ.

No organ has any power to superintend over the exercise of powers and functions of another, unless the Constitution strictly so mandates. It is obvious that all organs of the State should act only according to the constitutional mandate and should not be astute to find any undisclosed source of power or authority to expand its own jurisdiction, which will give rise to avoidable conflicts and affect the harmonious functioning of the different organs of the State.

Judiciary: Savior of The Rights of Destitute and Commoner Supreme Above All
“The supreme court is the living voice of the constitution – that is of the will of people expressed in the fundamental laws they have enacted. It is the conscience of the people. it is guarantee of the minority who when threatened by the impatient vehemence of the majority, can appeal to this permanent law finding the interpreter and enforcer there of in a court set high above the assault of the factions.”

– As quoted by James Bryce, the then British ambassador to US in the American commonwealth in 1888 was understood to the deepest of its meaning by the framers of our Constitution as they assigned the judiciary in India to play a significant role of safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution by interpreting and applying the provisions of the Constitution and acts as its guardian by keeping all authorities i.e. legislature, executive, administration, judicial and quasi judicial authorities within bounds of Constitutional framework and thereby maintaining the rule of law in the country and assures that the government runs according to law.

“Those who wrote our Constitution well knew the danger inherent in special legislative acts which take away the life, liberty or property of particular named person because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment. The authors of the Constitution intended to safeguard the people of this country from punishment without trial by duly constituted courts.”

– This was quoted by Felix Frankfurter, US Supreme Court Justice in US v. Lovett[2] in 1945 and to bring this reality they entitled the judiciary to scrutinize under Article 13 of the Constitution any governmental action in order to assess whether or not it conforms to the Constitution and the valid laws made there under.

It has power to protect people’s fundamental rights from any undue encroachment by any organ of the government. The Supreme Court acts as the guardian and protector of the fundamental rights of the people by invoking its power of writ jurisdiction conferred on it under Article 32 of the Constitution and thereby acts as sentinel on qui vive to protect the fundamental rights as was held by the Supreme Court in Pathumma v. State Of Kerla.

As in the words of Justice Untwalia in Union Of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth[4]: “Judiciary is a watching tower above all the big structure of the other limbs of the state from which it keeps a watch like a sentinel on the functions of the other limbs of the state as to whether they are working in accordance with the law and the Constitution where the Constitution being supreme.” [4]

It has also to dispense justice between the state and the citizens i.e. between seat of power and the commoner where the former is armed with all the privileges and power and support of majority of countrymen and the latter is bare hands belonging to the handful of people whose rights are infringed by the governmental action but with firm belief and faith in the principles of democracy in their heart and mind.

As it was quoted by Felix Frankfurter, US Supreme Court Justice in Earl Katcher & Warren: A Political Biography, 1967:

“The Supreme Court authority possessed neither of the purse nor the sword but ultimately rest on sustained public confidence in its moral sanctions. Such a feeling must be nourished by the court’s complete detachment, infact and appearance, from political entanglements and by abstention from injecting itself into the clash of political forces and political settlements.”

So in order to realize this and to enable judiciary to discharge their functions impartially without fear or favor, our forefathers armed the constitution with certain provisions not only to safeguard judicial independence but also to ensure the judicial accountability from lower to topmost tier. The judges of these courts are appointed by the central executive in accordance with the advice of chief justice himself and this mechanism for maintaining this independence was ensured after the landmark judgment in Supreme Court Advocate’s On Record v. Union Of India[5] case. Once appointed, the judges hold office till they reach the age of superannuation as fixed by the Constitution under Article 124(2) because of which their tenure is independent of the will of the executive and further there is a special and complex procedure that has been laid down in Article 124(4) of the Constitution for removing the judges on the grounds of incapacity or misbehavior which ensures that their power is checked and they do not function in an arbitrary manner.[5]

There is one more significant role that the judiciary has to play in a federation i.e. to act as the balance wheel of federalism by deciding the controversies between the constituent states inter se, as well as between the centre and state as this power is conferred to judiciary under Article 131 of the Constitution under the heading of original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Further adding weapons to its armoury the framers of our Constitution has provided the Supreme Court with jurisdiction to punish contempt of its authority under Article 129 of the Constitution. Such a power is very necessary to prevent interference with the course of justice and in maintaining the authority of law as administered in the court and to ensure the confidence of people in the integrity of the judges as the same was observed by the court in Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal[6] that: “Any act or omission which undermines the dignity of the court is therefore viewed with concern by the society and the court treats it as an obligation to zealously guard against any onslaught on its dignity.”[6]

It is not so that only an individual can be held liable for contempt of court but executive branch of government also bears a grave responsibility for upholding and obeying judicial orders as the same was ruled by the apex court in Md. Aslam v. Union Of India[7] and Vineet Kumar Mathur v. Union Of India[8] to name few but this responsibility is many times is not fulfilled in many cases and in many cases government officials are found guilty by the Supreme Court of contempt the most famous of which is Indira Sawhney v. Union Of India[9] where the Chief Secretary of Kerela was guilty of contempt of court. [9][8][7]

In this regard parliament has the power to enact laws but such laws are limited only to prescribe the procedure to be followed and the maximum duration of the punishment and can make provisions for appeal but parliament has no legislative competence to abridge or extinguish the jurisdiction or power conferred on this court by the Constitution. The two rulings namely Delhi Judicial Services Association, Tis Hazari Court v. State of Gujrat[10] and Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union Of India[11] in this respect are significant where in the former the Supreme Court held that parliament’s power to legislate in relation to law of contempt is limited and in the latter Supreme Court ruled that the Constitutional vested right under Article 129 can’t be either abrogated, abridged or cut down by any legislation such as Contempt of Court Act or C.P.C. [11][10]

The above mentioned provisions of the Constitution is the place from where judiciary attributes its supremacy over the other 2 pillars of Indian democracy namely the legislature and executive and any act done by judiciary for upholding the principles of democracy can’t be labeled as encroachment of judiciary over the domain of legislature and executive as many times in recent past top notch of legislature and executive had given statement in open against judiciary of not to cross its limits which clearly attracts contempt of court proceeding against themselves.

Talking about the recent major face off between the judiciary on one side and legislature and executive on the other side are on the issues of directions of Supreme Court to conduct floor test in Jharkhand Assembly, summons to Lok Sabha Speaker in expulsions of M.P.’s case and considering the constitutionality of dissolution of Bihar Assembly.

Regarding the direction of Supreme Court to conduct floor test in Jharkhand Assembly, it is no where in violation of Article 212 of Constitution because although the courts can’t interfere with the working of a house on grounds of irregularity of procedure but they may scrutinize the proceeding of house on grounds of illegality or unconstitutionality. The same was the case here as the courts didn’t interfered in the procedure of floor test but it only directed to conduct a floor test because formation of JMM government was unconstitutional as it was in minority and was formed without the floor test. Similar verdict of Supreme Court was there to conduct floor test in case of Jagdambika Pal v. State of U.P.[12]. It is all wrong to say that Constitution prohibits judiciary to look into matters of violation of Constitution when it is concerned with legislative act instead it is vice versa as in Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly[13] the court had interpreted the Constitution as: “Article 212(1) seems to make it possible for a citizen to call in question in the appropriate court of law, the validity of any proceeding inside the legislative chamber, if his case is that the said proceeding suffer not from mere irregularity of procedure, but from an illegality. If the impugned procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to be scrutinized in a court of law.” [13][12]

Coming to the topic of summon to Speaker of Lok Sabha and his subsequent remarks on that clearly invites contempt of court proceedings against him as he had laminated the Supreme Court to be overstepping its limits which was not the case of overstepping of limits, but is a jurisdiction conferred to it by Constitution as laid down in: Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi[14] where it was ruled that under Article 142(1) that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction is entitled to pass any decree, or make any order, as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause of matter pending before it and it was under same provision it was deemed fit by Supreme Court to summon the Speaker and ask him that under which provision of law the legislature has power to expel its members elected by people when it doesn’t have power to appoint them as representative of people. [14]

It must also be brought in light that it was not only under Article 142(1) but it was also under an express provision of Constitution for this purpose i.e. under Article 142(2) of Constitution Supreme Court have all and every power to make any order for securing attendance of any person and Speaker should be reminded of Article 361 of Constitution which protect only President and Governor from being answerable to any court in course of exercise and performance of powers and duties of his office or for any act done and the post of Speaker Of Lok Sabha is not in the ambit of this provision of not being answerable to any court of law and it should also be reminded to him that his denial to summons of court is in ambit of guidelines laid down by apex court in Hira Lal Dixit v. State of U.P.[15] in which it was held that any willful disobedience or non compliance of court order is considered as contempt of court as his act hampers administration of justice and erodes faith of people from the temple of justice and brings administration of justice into deep disrespect.[15]

Lastly dissolution of Bihar Assembly which was dissolved on the recommendation of Governor of Bihar and on advice of Union cabinet of ministers by The President was held unconstitutional is also not violation of Article 361 of Constitution as the court hadn’t seek any answer either from The President and The Governor of Bihar but from this it shouldn’t be construed from this provision that this prohibits the court to initiate any proceedings against the Government Of India as the same Article 361 further states that nothing in this clause shall be implied as restricting right of any person to bring appropriate proceeding against Government Of India. Further in this matter it should be taken that in the cases of Rao Birinder Singh v. Union Of India[16] and Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union Of India[17] and other such cases court held that appropriate proceeding can be brought against Government Of India and only President personally is not amenable to a court process with reference to act in question yet when question arises that whether in a given situation the President has acted rightly or wrongly it may be decided only against Government Of India without questioning president’s conduct.[17][16]

Conclusion
Finally it should be kept in mind that such Constitutional blunder as that of dissolution of Bihar Assembly case should be avoided in which the President’s office was indirectly brought under criticism by bringing an amendment in Article 74(1) of Constitution and thereby amending it as there shall be Supreme Court with Chief Justice at its head to aid and advice President who shall, in exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice so by this all his acts will be in ambit and accordance with laws of country where Constitution being supreme and there will be no any such Constitutional blunder as that of indirect criticism of President’s office.

Further the cases like that of P.N. Duda v. P. Shivshanknkear[18] should be dealt with an iron hand and no one should be allowed to walk away freely in any way or other despite criticism of courts only on the grounds that he or she belongs to power corridors of country as we don’t further want constitutional blunder as that of Justice Beg and Justice A.N. Ray nor brain drain from judiciary as that of protest resignation in the form of Justice Khanna.[18]

In a much awaited observation on live-in relationships, the Supreme Court opined that a man and a woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence. “When two people want to live together, what is the offence? Does it amount to an offence?” a special three-Judge Bench constituting the Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan observed. The Supreme Court said that there was no law prohibiting live-in relationships or pre-marital sex. “Living together is a right to live” the Supreme Court said, apparently referring to Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to life and personal liberty as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court made the observation while reserving its judgment on a Special Leave Petition filed by a noted South Indian actress, Khushboo seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly endorsed pre-marital sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005[1].

Meaning
Live-in relation i.e. cohabitation is an arrangement whereby two people decide to live together on a long-term or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate relationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married.

Today, cohabitation is a common pattern among people in the Western world. People may live together for a number of reasons. These may include wanting to test the compatibility or to establish financial security before marrying. It may also be because they are unable to legally marry, for instance, if they are of the same sex, some interracial or inter-religious marriages are not legal or permitted. Other reasons include living with someone before marriage in an effort to avoid divorce, a way for polygamists or polyamorists to avoid breaking the law, a way to avoid the higher income taxes paid by some two-income married couples (in the United States), negative effects on pension payments (among older people), philosophical opposition to the institution of marriage and seeing little difference between the commitment to live together and the commitment to marriage. Some individuals may also choose cohabitation because they see their relationships as being private and personal matters, and not to be controlled by political, religious or patriarchal institutions.

Position Of Live-In Relationships Abroad
With the Supreme Court declaring that the right to live together is a part of the right to life, it is necessary to look at the legal rights and obligations for live-in couples around the world. While heterosexual couples who are in a live-in relationship are called “cohabitant”, same sex couples are legally defined as “civil partners”. But the law on cohabitation rights is largely evolving and many participants are still unaware of their rights and duties to each other.
• Scotland
Family Law (Scotland) Act, 2006, for the first time identified, and in the process by default, legalized live-in relationships of over 150000 cohabiting couples in the country. Section 25(2) of the Act states that a court of law can consider a person as a cohabitants of another by checking on three factors; the length of the period during which they lived together, the nature of the relationship during that period and the nature and extent of any financial arrangements.

• France
Live-in relationships in France are governed by the Civil Solidarity Pact of ‘pacte civil de solidarite’ or PaCS, passed by the French National Assembly in October 1999. Cohabitation is defined as a “de facto stable and continuous relationship” between two persons of different sexes or of the same sex living together as couple. The pact defines the relationship as a contract, and the couples involved as “contractants”. The contract binds “two adults of different sexes or of the same sex, in order to organize their common life.” For a valid contract to exist, the contractants “may not be bound” by another pact, “by marriage, sibling or lineage.”

• United Kingdom
Live-in relationships in the United Kingdom are largely covered by the Civil Partnership Act, 2004. Though a man and woman living together in a stable sexual relationship are often referred to as “common law spouses”, the expression is not wholly correct in law in England and Wales. The Government feels that live-in partners owe each other more than that to be worthy of the term. As per a 2010 note from the Home Affairs Section to the House of Commons, unmarried couples have no guaranteed rights to ownership of each other’s property on breakdown of relationship. If a cohabiting couple separates, the Courts have no power to override the strict legal ownership of property and divide it as they may do on divorce. Unmarried partners have no automatic inheritance over their partner’s assets on death. Cohabiting couples are treated as unconnected individuals for taxation purposes.

• Canada
Living together in Canada is legally recognised as “common law marriage”. In many cases common law couples have the same rights as married couples under the federal law of the country. A common law relationship gets legal sanctity if the couple has been living in a conjugal relationship for atleast 12 continuous months, or the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption, or one of the persons has custody and control of the child and the child is wholly dependent on that person for support.

• Ireland
Though living together is legally recognised in Ireland, news reports says the public is up in arms against a new legislation to introduce legal rights for “separated” live-in couples to demand maintenance or share their property with their dependent partners. The scheme will apply to both opposite sexs and same sex unmarried couples who have been living together for three years, or two years in the case of a cohabiting couple with children. The Government, with this legislation, intends to provide legal and financial protection for the vulnerable and financially dependent cohabitants in the event of death or the break up of a relationship.

• Australia
The Family Law Act of Australia states that a “de facto relationship” can exist between two people of different or of the same sex and that a person can be in a de-facto relationship even if legally married to another person or in a defacto relationship with someone else.

• United States
Cohabitation was illegal in the United States prior in 1970, but went on to gain status as a common law, subject to certain requirements. The American legal history was then a witness to several consensual sex legislations, which paved the way for living together contracts and their cousins, the “prenuptial agreements”. The country later institutionalized cohabitation by giving cohabiters essentially the same rights and obligations as married couples, a situation similar to Sweden and Denmark. Those living together are not recognized as legal parents.

Position Of Live-In Relationships In India
In India, cohabitation had been a taboo since British rule. However, this is no longer true in big cities, but is still often found in rural areas with more conservative values. Female live-in partners have economic rights under Protections of Women and Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Maharashtra Government in October 2008 approved a proposal suggesting that a woman involved in a live-in relationship for a ‘reasonable period’, should get the status of a wife. Whether a period is a ‘reasonable period’ or not is determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.

The National Commission for Women recommended to the Ministry of Women and Child Development in 30th June, 2008 that the definition of ‘wife’ as described in section 125 of Cr.P.C., must include women involved in a live-in relationship. The aim of the recommendation was to harmonise the provisions of law dealing with protection of women from domestic violence and also to put a live-in couple’s relationship at par with that of a legally married couple. There was a Committee set up by the Supreme Court for this purpose, called the Justice Malimath Committee, which observed that “if a man and a woman are living together as husband and wife for a reasonable long period, the man shall be deemed to have married the woman.”

The Malimath Committee had also suggested that the word ‘wife’ under Cr.P.C. be amended to include a ‘woman living with the man like his wife’ so that even a woman having a live-in relationship with a man would also be entitled to alimony. On 16.09.2009, the Supreme Court in a case[2] observed that it is not necessary for a woman to strictly establish the marriage, to claim maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C.. A woman in a live-in relationship may also claim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C..

In a case[3] the Allahabad High Court ruled out that “a lady of about 21 years of age being a major, has the right to live with a man even without getting married, if both so wish”. The Supreme Court observed that a man and woman, if involved in a live-in relationship for a long period, they will be treated as a married couple and their child would be considered as legitimate.

Pros And Cons Of Live-In Relationships
The Supreme Court’s controversial observation okaying live-in relationships and pre-marital sex has generated fierce debate across the country. The historic observation has made to upset many orthodox groups fearing that it would destroy the sanctity of marriage. A fragment of the society including noted social activists and prominent dignitaries have stepped ahead and shared their precious views on this.

“We hope the Government shall take proper steps to safeguard Indian women’s rights and dignity and save the society from chaos”, said Maa Ghara Foundation Trustee, Rutuparna Mohanty. “It will start unraveling the fabric of Indian family life”, she said. She also viewed that it would give rise to child pregnancy and has far reaching ramifications, adding despite its aim to restrict multiple partners; it would have an adverse impact on the youths and result in the spread of HIV/AIDS. “Children born out of living together relationships would not be properly brought up,” Mohanty rued.

Social scientists have already identified grave social problems like young age pregnancy of adolescent girls, drug abuse, violence and juvenile delinquencies and in the wake of the controversial ruling, the erstwhile objectionable social behavior gets legalized, many felt. This way, the new generation will be more spoilt. They will prefer live-in relationships to marriages arranged by their parents. There is no guarantee that the male in such relationship will turn out to be a loyal partner in the long run or would not leave the woman with their issues and run away without prior notice.

BJP spokesperson Shaina, expressed that, according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is no provision for a second wife among Hindus. Hence, enabling the mistress to get the status of a legally married wife in all matters, including share in property, inheritance, and maintenance is contrary to the Act as well as Hindu customs.”

When the Maharastra Government approved a proposal suggesting that a woman involved in a live-in relationship for a ‘reasonable period’, should get the status of a wife, Shaina said that the Government on one hand has banned dance bars because they are spoiling the social atmosphere, while on the other it is promoting illicit relationships through such amendments. Senior BJP leader Jaywantiben Mehta also opposed the amendment. “It will have adverse effect on our values. The amendment will prove to be a loss for the women instead of gain,” she said.

On the other hand, the section advocating freedom of choosing live-in relationship has hailed it as a pragmatic move. The recent observations, as they see, should be welcomed because it lays down emphasis on individual freedom. It opens frontiers to understand the personality traits of their partner well. Since there are no legal complications in a live-in relationship, walking out of such a relationship would be much easier than walking out of a marriage. Metro life that throws floodgates of challenges also supports this kind of an arrangement. The individuals should be free to live as they think best, subject only to the limitation that their actions and choices should not cause harm to others. It is a very radical attitude. Some people are of the view that women should be given the liberty to choose their life partners and should not be forced into marriages if they are not ready.

As expected, women from various walks of life have welcomed progressive moves on live-in relationships. Jaishree Misra, a New Delhi based author says, “India has changed. If people think youngsters are losing their values, then I would say they are becoming more pragmatic. In today’s times, it is better for them to know what they are getting into”.

This is not the first time live-in relationship is in the ambit of debates and discussions. There has been a long-standing controversy whether a relationship between a man and a woman living together without marriage can be recognized by law. With changing social hypothesis entering the society, in most places, it is legal for unmarried people to live together. Now even in a country like India bounded by innumerable cultural ethics and rites, the law finds legally nothing wrong in live-in relationships.

This, however, cannot be construed that law promotes such relationships. Law traditionally has been biased in favour of marriage. It reserves many rights and privileges to married persons to preserve and encourage the institution of marriage. Such stands, in particular cases of live-in relationship, it appears that, by and large, is based on the assumption that they are not between equals and therefore women must be protected by the courts from the patriarchal power that defines marriage, which covers these relationships too.

Legitimacy Of The Child Born Out Of A Live-In Relationship
The Supreme Court on an earlier occasion, while deciding a case involving the legitimacy of a child born out of wedlock has ruled that if a man and a woman are involved in a live-in relationship for a long period, they will be treated as a married couple and their child would be legitimate. Also, the recent changes introduced in law through the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 gives protection to women involved in such relationships for a ‘reasonable long period’ and promises them the status of wives. A Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat declared that children born out of such a relationship will no more be called illegitimate. “Law inclines in the interest of legitimacy and thumbs down ‘whoreson’ or ‘fruit of adultery’.”

Inheritance Rights
The Supreme Court held that a child born out of a live-in relationship is not entitled to claim inheritance in Hindu ancestral coparcenary property (in the case of an undivided joint Hindu family) and can only claim a share in the parents’ self-acquired property. The Bench set aside a Madras High Court judgment, which held that children born out of live-in relationships were entitled to a share in ancestral property as there was a presumption of marriage in view of the long relationship.

Reiterating an earlier ruling, a Vacation Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said, “In view of the legal fiction contained in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages), the illegitimate children, for all practical purposes, including succession to the properties of their parents, have to be treated as legitimate. They cannot, however, succeed to the properties of any other relation on the basis of this rule, which in its operation, is limited to the properties of the parents.”

A child can only make a claim on the person’s self acquired property, in case the child is illegitimate. It can also be interpreted in a way in which a child could lay a claim on the share of a parents’ ancestral property as they can ask for that parents’ share in such property, as Section 16 permits a share in the parents’ property. Hence, it could be argued that the person is not only entitled to self acquired property but also a share in the ancestral property.

The Apex Court also stated that while the marriage exists, a spouse cannot claim the live-in relationship with some other person and seek inheritance for the children from the property of that other person. The relationship with some other person, while the husband is living is not ‘live-in relationship’ but ‘adultery’.[4] It is further clarified that ‘live in relationship’ is permissible in unmarried heterosexuals (in case, one of the said persons is married, the man may be guilty of adultery and it would amount to an offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code).

Conclusion And Suggestions
Live-in relationships are now very popular in India. The law does not prescribe how we should live; it is ethics and social norms which explain the essence of living in welfare model. The Court itself notices that what law sees as no crime may still be immoral. It has said in a judgement of 2006, notices by the Court now, that two consenting adults engaging in sex is not an offence in law “even though it may be perceived as immoral.”[5] Of course, such protective sanctions may potentially lead to complications that could otherwise be avoided. But simply raising the hammer may not be the best route to taming the bold and the brave. Awareness has to be created in these young minds not just from the point of the emotional and societal pressures that such a relationship may create, but also the fact that it could give rise to various legal hassles on issues like division of property, violence, cases of desertion by death of a partner and handling of custody and other issues when it comes to children resulting from such relationships.

While the Supreme Court’s opinion might not have the undesirable effect on more and more couples preferring live-in relationships rather that opting to wed, it could certainly embolden more young men and women as they would now be convinced that there is no breach of law in the live-in relationship. One can only weigh the pros and cons and take into account the impact of their decision on their family and most importantly on themselves.