A new report from the Office of National Statistics suggests that there will be fewer divorces in the future, simply because fewer couples are choosing to marry. Fifty-one percent of adults were registered as married in 2007. This is a marked downturn from the situation in 1998, when 59% were married.

Couples these days opt to live together rather than go through any formal marriage ceremony. Some experts believe that the escalating costs of putting on a wedding are responsible for the reluctance to formalise live-in relationships. The current recession can only tip the balance even further.

Today, of course, cohabitation can seem equal to marriage, since so many people make that choice. On the surface, there may appear to be no difference between being married and simply living as though they were married, often bringing up children together. It is quite possible that even their closest friends will have no idea that they’re not legally married.

But in the event of a split there can be huge problems, especially for the women in live-in relationships, because cohabitation is not the equivalent of marriage in the eyes of the law in this country.

In some jurisdictions the law does recognise cohabitation. In Australia, for example, where it is described as a ‘de facto relationship’, the woman will be entitled to financial provision and a share in property should the couple separate.

Many people - perhaps the majority of people - believe that in the United Kingdom we have something called ‘common law marriage’, which is just the same as being married. Unfortunately, common law marriage is just a myth.

Here, when a married couple divorce, the family court has wide powers to distribute the assets of the husband and wife as fairly as possible between them. All the factors in the marriage are taken into account in coming to as fair a division of family property and income as can be achieved. The court can order maintenance for a wife, give her a capital sum, make a property transfer order in her favour - even give her an interest in a husband’s pension entitlement.

Where there has been no marriage, however, things are very different from the legal point of view. The woman [or the man in a case where she is financially better off] will find that there are few protections available. It doesn’t matter how long you may have lived together: if you’re the one who has stayed at home to care for children, even if you’ve given up career opportunities to do so, the family court is almost powerless to help, other than to order maintenance for any children of your union.

Crucially, if the family home is in the sole name of your partner you may have no interest in it, unless you can prove that you have made actual financial contributions to its purchase.

The Government has been considering proposals for getting a more even playing field for live-in partners, but so far nothing concrete has emerged.

So, if you’re thinking about living together without getting married, get one vitally important thing straight: you both need to see a lawyer and have a legally binding agreement drawn up, which sets out exactly what is to happen about property and finance should your relationship hit the rocks at some future date.

At a time when you are both in love and believe that you will be together for the rest of your lives - and who cares about a marriage certificate! - it may seem unromantic advice. But it could be the best advice you ever receive.