Do Breakups in Live-In Relationships Destroy a Woman’s Dignity?

In a society as culturally diverse and traditionally grounded as India, the institution of marriage has long held a sacrosanct status. However, changing social norms, urbanisation, and increasing individual autonomy have paved the way for alternative relationship structures, particularly live-in relationships. These arrangements, though recognised by the judiciary as lawful in specific contexts, often carry complex social implications, especially for women. One critical concern is whether breakups in live-in relationships irreversibly damage a woman's dignity.

The Allahabad High Court, in Shane Alam v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025:AHC:99430), raised a poignant observation: the concept of live-in relationships, while legally valid, can work disproportionately against women, especially when such relationships end in betrayal or abandonment. This article examines whether the dissolution of such relationships truly undermines a woman’s dignity—legally, socially, and psychologically—and what mechanisms can be implemented to ensure protection and empowerment.

Live-In Relationships in India: A Shift in Social Norms and Legal Challenges

Live-in relationships are becoming increasingly common in India, especially among urban youth influenced by Western lifestyles and globalisation. These arrangements offer couples the freedom to live together without the legal obligations of marriage. However, they often bypass the responsibilities associated with marital unions, such as spousal support and child legitimacy.

While cohabitation is socially accepted in many Western countries, Indian society—particularly in rural and traditional settings—still largely views it as taboo. The judiciary has extended some protections under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, treating certain long-term live-in relationships as “relationships in the nature of marriage.” Yet, these protections are limited and lack legislative backing.

The Law Commission and Malimath Committee have recommended reforms to ensure women in live-in relationships are not left without legal recourse. Still, clear statutory guidelines remain absent. As a result, women and children often suffer when such relationships break down.

Although society is gradually embracing this shift, the absence of legal clarity continues to impact the dignity and rights of those involved. Legislative action is essential to provide legal recognition, protection, and regulation of live-in relationships in India.

Indian Judiciary on Live-In Relationships

Indian courts have increasingly recognised the legal dimensions of live-in relationships, distinguishing them from traditional moral judgments. While society may still view such arrangements with scepticism, the judiciary has upheld individual autonomy and the legitimacy of long-term cohabitation.

In Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors. (1978), the Supreme Court held that a man and woman living together as husband and wife for nearly 50 years creates a strong presumption of a valid marriage, even without formal proof of ceremonies. Similarly, in Payal Sharma @ Kamla Sharma @ Payal Katara v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Kalindri Vihar, Agra & Ors. (2001), the Allahabad High Court ruled that an adult woman is free to live with anyone of her choice, stating that while such relationships may be seen as immoral by society, they are not illegal under Indian law.

Facts of Case: Shane Alam v. State of U.P. (2025)

The applicant, Shane Alam, was accused of rape under the guise of a false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix alleged that they had travelled together to several places and were in a live-in relationship, but the applicant eventually refused to marry her. He was charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Court's Observations

• The Court expressed concern over the rising number of cases involving failed live-in relationships and observed that such relationships, though legally recognised by the Supreme Court, remain socially controversial, especially in Indian middle-class society.
• The judge noted the gendered impact of breakups in such relationships, where women face more social stigma than men.
• However, applying the principle of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and referencing Supreme Court judgments (Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement), along with concerns over jail overcrowding, the Court found merit in granting bail.

Order

The bail application was allowed, subject to standard conditions, including:

• No tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
• Regular court appearance and no undue adjournments.
• Verification of identity and sureties was mandated before release.

The Gendered Aftermath of a Breakup

The High Court acknowledged a social asymmetry:

• Men, after ending a live-in relationship, can often remarry with little stigma.
• Women, in contrast, face serious social judgment, and their chances of marriage or social reintegration diminish sharply.

In this case, the prosecutrix’s counsel submitted that the applicant had exploited the victim, leaving her in a position where "no one is willing to marry her"—an insight into how societal attitudes compound the trauma following relationship breakdowns.

Legal Recognition v. Cultural Rejection

While the Supreme Court has recognised live-in relationships as valid and lawful, especially under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), societal norms have not evolved at the same pace. The Allahabad High Court’s lament — that courts are “fed up” with such cases — signals that the gap between legality and cultural acceptance is leading to a flood of litigation, particularly where allegations of false promises and exploitation arise.

Psychological Impact on Women

Beyond the legal dimension, the emotional and psychological toll of a live-in breakup can be immense:

• Sense of betrayal and abandonment—especially if the relationship was built on a promise of marriage.
• Self-blame and shame, exacerbated by societal backlash.
• Loss of identity—where a woman’s sense of self-worth was intricately tied to the relationship.
• Depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, particularly in cases where family support is lacking.

Is Dignity Truly Destroyed?

The term dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been interpreted broadly. It includes autonomy over personal choices, bodily integrity, and freedom from degrading treatment. Thus, the destruction of dignity in a breakup is not legal inevitability, but a societal consequence.

A woman’s dignity is not destroyed by the act of entering or exiting a live-in relationship; it is assaulted by societal hypocrisy, double standards, and lack of institutional support. If systems—legal, familial, and societal—treat her with empathy and fairness, her dignity can remain intact.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

In Shane Alam v. State of U.P. & Others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19278 of 2025), Justice Siddharth made significant observations on the societal impact of live-in relationships. He stated:

"After hearing the rival contention, this Court finds that after live in-relationship has been legalised by the Apex Court, the Court had fed up such cases. These cases are coming to the Court because the concept of live-in-relationship is against the settled law in the Indian Middle Class Society.

The concept of live- in relationship goes against the interest of the women since a man can marry even after live-in-relationship a woman or number of women but it is difficult for the women to find a life partner after a breakup. The concept of live-in-relationship has attracted the young generation allot but its after affects are seeing in the case like the present case."

Need for Social Reforms and Legal Evolution

To address these issues, the following steps are essential:

1. Legal Codification of Live-In Relationships:

India needs a statute governing live-in relationships, akin to civil partnerships, with provisions for:

• Mutual rights and duties,
• Succession and maintenance,
• Resolution mechanisms post-breakup.

2. Gender-Sensitive Judiciary

Judges must evaluate live-in breakup cases with empathy, avoiding generalisations that shift blame onto women or trivialise their suffering.

3. Public Awareness Campaigns

State and civil society must educate the public about the legitimacy of live-in relationships and fight the stigma surrounding them.

4. Counselling and Rehabilitation Services

Free or subsidised mental health support must be provided to women dealing with emotional fallout post-relationship.

Conclusion

Breakups in live-in relationships do not inherently destroy a woman’s dignity. What shatters her dignity is a society that weaponises morality, blames her for her choices, and offers minimal legal recourse. The legal recognition of live-in relationships, while a positive step, must be matched by social acceptance and structured legal remedies that do not disproportionately penalise women.

The 2025 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Shane Alam reflects a harsh societal reality—that women face far greater consequences in live-in relationships than men. If India is to move towards a truly gender-just society, it must not only uphold the legality of such relationships but also ensure that their breakdown does not become a vehicle for humiliating women or stripping them of their constitutional dignity.