Supreme Court's Historic Verdict on Rights of Live-in Children

Tue Jun 14 2022 16:34:12 GMT+0530 (IST)

The popular west concept of live-in relationships had successfully forayed into India. People in big cities in many states have followed and currently have live-in relationships. With the growing percentage of live-in relationships in the country, the practice's legality often pops up. What about the child born out of the live-in relationship is the new question to the issue.



Many people have the same question. Should the child born in the relationship be seen as a legal child is a question that has been eating many heads. To put a full stop to the discussion, India's top court Supreme Court gave a sensational verdict in the live-in relationship row.

Hearing a petition the bench of the Supreme Court comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath said that, if a man and woman stay together for a long period then their relationship should be seen as a marriage, and the children born in the relationship should be considered as a legal heir.

The Supreme Court said this in connection with a case that traces back to 2009. Back in 2009, the Kerala High Court said that a boy who was born as a result of a live-in relationship cannot be given a share in the ancestral properties. The old verdict was challenged in the Supreme Court.

Setting the verdict given by the Kerala High Court aside, the Apex Court said that the son born out of a live-in relationship enjoys all the rights like other children and he is entitled to the share in the ancestral properties.

Having said that the petitioner who moved the court in this regard is eligible to get the share in the ancestral properties, the Supreme Court also said that it is his job now to prove that his parents who were in the live-in relationship did not marry other persons.

"It is well settled that if a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock. Such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act," the Supreme Court Bench said in its verdict.