Live-in Relationship Does Not Create a Valid Marital Bond, Rules Chhattisgarh High Court; No Legal Rights for Second Partner Without Divorce

Digital Desk

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a live-in relationship cannot confer the legal status of husband and wife, nor can it create inheritance rights for a second partner or children born from such a relationship if the first marriage subsists legally. Upholding a family court order, the court clarified that without a lawful divorce, a second marriage is void under Hindu law, and children born during the continuance of the first marriage are legally presumed to be the offspring of the first husband.

The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman and her two daughters who sought legal recognition of a man as their husband and father. The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice AK Prasad held that personal admissions or mutual consent cannot override statutory provisions governing marriage and legitimacy.

The case originated from Bilaspur, where Chandrakali, along with her daughters Durgesh Nandani and Santoshi Jangde, had approached the family court seeking a declaration that Brijmohan Dua was Chandrakali’s lawful husband and that the two daughters were his legitimate heirs. The family court rejected the plea in 2019, observing that the dispute was essentially linked to property rights.

Challenging that decision, the appellants moved the High Court, arguing that Chandrakali had been living with Brijmohan Dua as his wife for several decades and that he had acknowledged both daughters as his own. Dua, in his deposition, had also accepted Chandrakali as his wife and the daughters as his children.

However, the High Court noted that Chandrakali’s first marriage, solemnised in 1960 with Atmaprakash, was never legally dissolved. Chandrakali claimed her first husband left home in 1984 and never returned, but no documentary evidence of divorce or death was produced before the court.

The Bench relied on Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandate that a second marriage during the subsistence of the first is void. The court further referred to the legal presumption of legitimacy, holding that children born during a valid marriage are deemed to be the children of the lawful husband, irrespective of subsequent relationships.

The court also took note of government records, including Aadhaar and other official documents, which continued to mention Atmaprakash as the father of the two daughters. It held that mere acknowledgment by another man or prolonged cohabitation cannot alter legal parentage or marital status.

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court concluded that Chandrakali could not be granted the status of Brijmohan Dua’s wife, nor could the daughters be declared his legal heirs. The judgment reinforces the legal position that live-in relationships do not automatically create marital or inheritance rights in the absence of compliance with statutory marriage laws.