Live-in Relationships and Inheritance in India: The Legal Position

In the last decade, I have increasingly seen estate disputes arising out of long-standing live-in relationships. The emotional expectations of the parties rarely align with the legal position. The law on succession in India remains formal and document-driven. Cohabitation, however genuine or prolonged, does not create inheritance rights.

The starting point is simple: if a person dies without a will, their estate devolves strictly in accordance with the applicable personal law. For Hindus, this is governed by the Hindu Succession Act. The Act recognises specific categories of heirs. A live-in partner is not one of them.

Live-in Partner Is Not a Statutory Heir

Under the Hindu Succession Act, Class I heirs include the legally wedded spouse, children, and mother of the deceased. In the absence of a valid divorce, the lawful spouse continues to be a Class I heir regardless of the factual state of the marriage.

I have encountered situations where parties had lived separately for 20 or 30 years, each leading independent lives. Yet, in the absence of a decree of divorce, the spouse’s right to inherit remained intact. Separation does not terminate succession rights. Even judicial separation does not have that effect. Only a legally recognised divorce does.

If a person remains legally married but is in a live-in relationship at the time of death, and dies intestate, the estate will devolve upon the legal spouse and children — not upon the live-in partner.

Nomination Does Not Confer Ownership

Another recurring misconception concerns nomination. Many individuals assume that naming their partner as a nominee in insurance policies, provident fund accounts, or government records secures their interest. It does not.

The Supreme Court settled this position decades ago in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, holding that a nominee is merely authorised to receive the amount; the beneficial ownership is determined by succession law unless a statute expressly provides otherwise.

The principle was reaffirmed by the Delhi High Court in Rampali v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi. In that matter, the deceased had lived separately from her husband and daughter for decades and had made a nomination in favour of another individual. The Court held that nomination is not a will. In the absence of a testamentary disposition, only the legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act were entitled to succeed. The nominee did not acquire ownership.

The distinction is fundamental: a will alters succession. A nomination does not.

Joint Accounts and the Question of Beneficial Ownership

Joint bank accounts frequently give rise to litigation. Banks often release funds to the surviving account holder for operational convenience. That, however, does not conclude the issue of title.

If the monies standing in the joint account were contributed solely by the deceased, the legal heirs are entitled to claim the deceased’s share. The surviving partner would have to establish either joint contribution or a clear intention of gift. In practice, absent documentary evidence, this can become contentious.

Children from Earlier Marriages

Children from prior marriages remain Class I heirs. Their rights are not diluted by the existence of a subsequent live-in relationship. Where a person has not legally dissolved an earlier marriage, both the lawful spouse and children will inherit in accordance with the statute.

The Practical Reality

The law does not recognise a live-in partner as an heir under intestate succession. Length of cohabitation, emotional commitment, financial interdependence — none of these substitute for a testamentary instrument.

In every such matter I advise on, the conclusion is the same: if an individual in a live-in relationship intends their partner to inherit, a properly drafted and executed will is indispensable. Without it, succession will follow the statute, not sentiment.