Unit VII · Topic 4Changing dimensions of institution of marriage – Live-in relationship – Previous Year Questions
5 previous year questions on Changing dimensions of institution of marriage – Live-in relationship from UGC NET Law papers (2013–2026). The correct option is marked in green.
Questions
5 questions
2013
In which case the Supreme Court held that "Cohabitation leads to presumption that person are living as husband and wife"?
(a)Balasubramaniyam v. Suruttayam, AIR 1992 SC 756✓
(b)Seema v. Ashiwin Kumar, AIR 2006 SC 1158
(c)Vishnu Prakash v. Sheela Devi, (2001) 4 SCC 729
(d)None of the above
Answer & explanation
Ans. (a) : Balasubramaniyam v. Suruttayam, AIR 1992 SC 756
Explanation: In Bala Subramaniyam v. Suruthayan AIR 1992, the Supreme Court held that there is a presumption that those who cohabit are husband and wife.
2019
In which of the case did Supreme Court hold that a relationship in the nature of marriage under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 must also fulfill some basic criteria, merely spending weekends together or one night would not make it a domestic relationship?
(a)Payal Katara v. Supt. Nari Niketan and other
(b)D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal✓
(c)Bharati Matha and others v. R. Vijaya Ranganathan and others
(d)S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and others
Answer & explanation
Ans. (b) : D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal Explanation: In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a "relationship in the nature of marriage" must fulfill certain basic criteria. Merely spending weekends together or one night together does not constitute a domestic relationship. The court laid down conditions — the couple must hold themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses, must be of legal marriageable age, must be otherwise qualified to marry, and must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period.
2020- 2021
Which of the following judgment does not deal with the matter of Live-in relationship?
(a)Indra Sarma V. K.V. Sarma
(b)Sharda V. Dharmpal✓
(c)S. Khushboo V. Kanniammal
(d)Chanmuniya V. Chanmuniya Kumar Singh
Answer & explanation
Ans. (b) : Sharda V. Dharmpal Explanation: Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003 SC) dealt with the relevance of medical examination in divorce proceedings — not live-in relationships. The other three cases are landmark decisions on live-in relationships: Indra Sarma v. K.V. Sarma (2013) laid down guidelines defining live-in relationships for legal purposes; S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) held that living together without marriage cannot be treated as a criminal offence; Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Kumar Singh (2011) held that women in live-in relationships are entitled to all reliefs available to legally married wives.
June 2025 · Q5
A Christian man (X) and a Hindu girl (Y) eloped and entered into an "Agreement of Marriage" on ₹50 stamp paper and registered it at the registrar’s office. They exchanged garlands, and X tied a mangalsutra around Y's neck. Is it a valid marriage?
(a)It is a valid marriage as it is registered by agreement
(b)It is a valid marriage as ceremonies are performed
(c)It is not a valid marriage as legal validity test is not complete✓
(d)It is a valid marriage as customary rites of the parties were followed
Answer & explanation
Answer: (c) It is not a valid marriage as legal validity test is not complete
Explanation: For inter-religious marriages in India, legal solemnization under the Special Marriage Act is necessary. Mere customary rites and registration on stamp paper do not validate such a marriage unless all statutory formalities are fulfilled. Procedure of Marriage under Special Marriage Act
• Giving the Intended Marriage Notice
• Notice Publication
• Objections, if any
• Solemnization of Marriage
• Certificate of Marriage
• Marriage Registration
June 2026 · Q101
In which one of the following case the Supreme Court held that, "not all live-inrelationship are in the nature of marriage". The Apex Court referred to certain situations, in which the relationship between the parties would or would not amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage?
(a)D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal
(b)Indra Sharma v. V.K.V. Sharma✓
(c)S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal
(d)Lata Singh v. Banwariwal
Answer & explanation
Answer: (b) Indra Sharma v. V.K.V. Sharma
Explanation: In Indra Sharma v. V.K.V. Sharma (2013) 15 SCC 755, the Supreme Court specifically held that "not all live-in relationships are in the nature of marriage". The Apex Court laid down elaborate guidelines and identified 8 key tests/guidelines to determine whether a live-in relationship falls within the ambit of a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). (Note: While D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) laid down the basic conditions for live-in relationships under the DV Act, it was in Indra Sharma (2013) that the Court exhaustively categorized various types of live-in relationships and explicitly ruled that not all such relationships amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage).