COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW
SUBMITTED BY:
KIRUTHIGA . P (2457214)
SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. JAYADEVAN S NAIR
Professor
School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University).
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of
MASTER OF LAW IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TRADE
LAW.
School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University) BENGALURU,
INDIA.
OCTOBER 2024.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS IN INDIA, THE
USA, AND THE UK: A FOCUS ON LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS.
Abstract
This comparative study explores domestic violence laws and their application to live-in
relationships in India, the USA, and the UK. While India’s Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act acknowledges live-in relationships, ambiguities persist regarding legal
protections. In the USA, domestic violence laws vary by state, creating disparities in
protections for cohabiting partners. The UK’s Domestic Abuse Act 2021 provides
comprehensive coverage but lacks clarity for non-marital cohabitation. The study emphasizes
the need for unified legal frameworks to better protect individuals in live-in relationships.
Keywords: Live-in relationships, domestic violence laws, India, USA, UK, cohabitation,
legal protections, non-marital cohabitation.
1. Introduction:
Domestic violence is a critical social issue which is faced by the individuals irrespective
of their age, gender or socio-economic status. It is said to be an issue which is pervasive
in nature that transcends geographical, cultural, and social boundaries. The raise of the
concept called ‘live-in relationship’ or non-marital cohabitation has made the application
of protection against domestic violence to the individuals even challenging as the
traditional notions of family and domestic spaces cannot be applied as it is for the
individuals involved in live-in relationships that results in raising a pertinent legal
question regarding the application of domestic violence laws. In many jurisdictions,
including India, these relationships are seen as outside the purview of conventional legal
frameworks, creating a potential gap in the protection of individuals from domestic
violence.
In many jurisdictions, including India, these relationships are seen as outside the purview
of conventional legal frameworks, creating a potential gap in the protection of individuals
from domestic violence. For example, Indian courts have recognized live-in relationships
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), but the
legal scope remains limited, with ambiguities in how these relationships are defined in
practice1.
2. Research Problem
Despite increasing recognition of domestic violence as a serious societal issue, there
remains a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding how different jurisdictions
address domestic violence within live-in relationships. This gap complicates efforts to
develop effective legal protections for victims.
3. Research Questions
a. How do India, the USA, and the UK define and legislate domestic violence in the
context of live-in relationships?
1
Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women's Rights in India (Oxford University Press,
1999), 65.
b. What are the legal gaps in protecting individuals in live-in relationships across these
jurisdictions?
4. Literature Review
4.1) Live in relationship in India: A critical study; Uzma Abbas, International Journal
of Civil Law and Legal Research 2024; 4(1): 138-142
The author states that in live-in relationships the couples cohabit without formal
marriage which are recognized and regulated differently across the globe. In some
countries, such as the United States and France, legal frameworks like cohabitation
agreements or civil unions grant partners certain rights regarding property, financial
support, and child custody. In India, while societal attitudes have traditionally been
conservative, recent legal developments and court rulings have begun to acknowledge
live-in relationships as legitimate arrangements. The author criticises the regulatory
frameworks particularly concerning the legal status of children born from such
relationships and the rights of the partners gains domestic violence. Despite these
challenges, the Indian judiciary has made strides in recognizing and protecting the
rights of individuals in live-in relationships, reflecting a gradual shift in societal
norms.
4.2) The Dynamics of Live-in Relationships in India: Perspectives from CrPC, IPC,
and The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Standpoints ;
Sandeep Kumar Sharma And Dr. Narendra Bahadur Singh; International Journal Of
Law Management & Humanities [Issn 2581-5369] Volume 7 | Issue 3 , 2024.
The authors explore the legal and social complexities surrounding live-in relationships
in India, emphasizing the influence of Western cultural norms on traditional family
structures. It examines how increasing cohabitation reflects a shift away from formal
marriage, while also highlighting the lack of specific legal protections for individuals
in such arrangements. The authors discuss judicial interpretations that recognize
cohabiting couples under existing laws, such as the Domestic Violence Act of 2005,
which includes provisions for women in relationships akin to marriage. Despite these
advancements, the paper underscored the need for clearer legislative frameworks to
address issues like maintenance, property rights, and child custody, as well as the
persistent societal stigma faced by cohabiting couples. Ultimately, the authors
advocate for reforms that would provide better protection and recognition for
individuals in live-in relationships while navigating the challenges posed by
traditional societal norms.
4.3) Controlling Behaviors and Intimate Partner Violence Among Women in Spain:
An Examination of Individual, Partner, and Relationship Risk Factors for Physical
and Psychological Abuse; Eva Aizpurua, Jennifer Copp, Jorge J. Ricarte, David
Vázquez; Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Volume 36 Issue 1-2, January 2021.
The authors explore the various risk factors associated with intimate partner violence
(IPV) in cohabiting relationships, particularly in the United States. It highlights how
cohabitation, while increasingly common, often lacks the legal protections afforded to
marriage, leaving individuals vulnerable to abuse. The study identifies key risk factors
such as economic stress, substance abuse, and relationship dynamics that contribute to
IPV among cohabiting couples. It emphasizes the importance of understanding these
dynamics to develop effective prevention and intervention strategies. The authors
advocate for targeted policies that address the unique challenges faced by cohabiting
partners, calling for greater legal recognition and support systems to protect victims of
domestic violence in these arrangements.
5. Definitions and Legislation
5.1) India
In India, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA)
2005 serves as a primary legal framework for addressing domestic violence, including
in live-in relationships. Section 2(f) specifies that a domestic relationship is
established when two individuals are, or have been, living together in a shared
household at any time. This definition encompasses live-in relationships that are akin
to marriage, thus allowing women in such arrangements to seek protection under the
PWDVA.2
The Supreme Court has further clarified that women involved in live-in relationships
can be considered aggrieved persons under Section 2(a) of the PWDVA, enabling
2
AGGRIEVED WOMEN AND LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: JUDICIAL DISCOURSE Mr. Rajendra Anbhule
them to claim rights related to maintenance and protection from domestic violence.
However, the law lacks clarity on several fronts, particularly regarding the status of
children born from these relationships and the absence of specific legislation
governing live-in arrangements.3
5.2) USA
In the United States, domestic violence is addressed through various federal and state
laws. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) defines domestic violence as
crimes committed by intimate partners, which include current or former spouses,
cohabitants, or individuals who share a child. Each state has its own statutes that
further define domestic violence; for instance, California's Penal Code includes
cohabitation as a criterion for defining domestic abuse.4
Legal protections vary significantly across states. Some jurisdictions offer robust
protections for individuals in live-in relationships, while others may not recognize
such arrangements adequately. The inconsistency in definitions and protections
creates gaps that can leave victims vulnerable depending on their location.5
5.3) UK
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 represents a significant advancement in the UK's legal
framework concerning domestic violence. It broadens the definition of domestic
abuse to include not just physical violence, but also emotional and financial abuse.
The Act recognizes individuals who are "personally connected," which includes those
who have been in an intimate personal relationship. This broad definition helps
encompass individuals in live-in relationships. However, despite these advancements,
challenges remain. The Act does not specifically address all forms of non-marital
cohabitation comprehensively. For example, while it provides mechanisms for
immediate protection through Domestic Abuse Protection Notices (DAPNs), it does
not fully clarify the rights of individuals in less formal living arrangements compared
to those who are married or civil partners.6
3
S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 600.
4
Section 12291(a)(8) 42 U.S. Code Subchapter III - VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
5
Ibid
6
Domestic Abuse Act 2021
6. Legal Gaps in Domestic Violence Laws for Live-In Relationships
Despite some legislative advancements in recognizing domestic violence within live-in
relationships in India, the USA, and the UK, significant legal gaps persist that undermine the
effectiveness of protections for victims. These gaps can be categorized into various
dimensions, including definitional ambiguities, inconsistent protections, and societal
challenges.
6.1) Definitional Ambiguities
One of the primary issues across jurisdictions is the lack of clear and consistent definitions
regarding what constitutes a live-in relationship. In India, while the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) recognizes relationships "in the nature of
marriage," the phrase itself is vague and can lead to differing interpretations in court. This
ambiguity can create uncertainty for individuals seeking protection under the law. For
instance, the criteria used to determine whether a relationship qualifies as "in the nature of
marriage" often rely on subjective factors such as duration and social recognition, which can
vary widely between cases. In the USA, definitions of domestic violence and cohabitation
vary significantly from state to state. Some states may include live-in partners under their
domestic violence statutes, while others do not recognize such arrangements at all. This
inconsistency can leave victims vulnerable depending on their location, complicating their
ability to seek legal recourse. The Supreme Court's ruling in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal
(2010)7 affirmed that live-in relationships are protected under this Act, emphasizing that
living together cannot be deemed illegal. However, subsequent cases like Indra Sarma v.
V.K.V. Sarma (2013)8 introduced criteria for recognizing such relationships, which can lead
to inconsistent judicial interpretations. High Courts in Bombay and Punjab have denied
protections based on moral grounds, viewing live-in relationships as undermining marriage.
This inconsistency creates a significant gap in legal protection for victims.
6.2) Inconsistent Protections
7
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3196
8
indra sarma v. v.k.v. sarma (2013) 15 scc 755
The protections afforded to individuals in live-in relationships are not uniform across
jurisdictions. In India, while women can seek protection under the PWDVA, the law
primarily focuses on women as victims and does not provide equal protections for men or
same-sex couples in live-in arrangements. This gender-specific focus can lead to situations
where male victims have limited recourse against domestic violence. In contrast, the
Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in the UK offers broader protections by recognizing various
forms of abuse and including all intimate relationships. However, it still lacks specific
provisions addressing non-marital cohabitation comprehensively. As a result, individuals in
informal cohabiting relationships may not receive the same legal protections as those who are
married or in civil partnerships.
6.3) Societal Challenges
Beyond legal frameworks, societal attitudes towards live-in relationships significantly impact
how laws are applied and enforced. In India, there remains a strong cultural stigma associated
with cohabitation outside of marriage. This societal disapproval can discourage victims from
seeking legal help due to fear of ostracism or retaliation from family members. Similarly, in
both the USA and UK, societal perceptions of domestic violence can influence how cases are
treated by law enforcement and judicial systems. The USA Court in People v. McCoy9,
courts have upheld protections for cohabiting partners but faced challenges regarding
definitions and enforcement. This patchwork of laws leaves many victims without adequate
legal recourse depending on their state of residence. Victims may face skepticism or bias
based on their relationship status, which can deter them from reporting incidents or pursuing
legal action.
7. Conclusion
The examination of domestic violence laws in India, the USA, and the UK reveals significant
gaps that hinder effective protection for individuals in live-in relationships. While there have
been strides in recognizing domestic violence as a serious societal issue, the legal frameworks
often lack clarity and consistency. For instance, in India, the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act offers a broad definition but struggles to address the complexities of
live-in relationships adequately, which leads to varying interpretations in courts. In the USA,
the inconsistency across state laws creates disparities in protections, leaving many victims
vulnerable depending on where they live. Meanwhile, the UK's Domestic Abuse Act 2021
9
25 Cal. 4th 1111, 24 P.3d 1210 (2001)
provides a more comprehensive approach but still doesn't specifically address non-marital
cohabitation. These legal gaps are further complicated by societal attitudes that stigmatize
live-in relationships, making it even harder for victims to seek help and leaving them
unprotected. To improve legal protections, we need to establish clear definitions of what
constitutes a live-in relationship, ensure that all individuals—regardless of gender or sexual
orientation—receive equal protection under the law, and launch public awareness campaigns
to challenge the stigma surrounding these arrangements. Additionally, training for law
enforcement on how to handle these cases sensitively is crucial, as is developing
comprehensive support systems that provide legal aid and safe housing options for victims.
By taking these steps, we can create a stronger legal framework that effectively addresses
domestic violence within live-in relationships, ultimately fostering a safer environment for
everyone involved and ensuring that those in need have access to justice and support.
Reference
1. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/
vantl23&div=32&id=&page=
2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260517723744
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
359536568_Domestic_violence_and_live-in_Relationship
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327342/
5. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/family-and-children/domestic-abuse-act-
2021
6. International Journal Of Law Management & Humanities.
