Marriage not essential for domestic cruelty protection: SC on live-in relationships

The Supreme Court has said women in long-term live-in relationships akin to marriage can invoke Section 498A. The ruling broadens protection against domestic cruelty but limits the interpretation to this provision alone.

In Short

• Protection limited only to cases under Section 498A, not other laws
• Court notes cruelty occurs regardless of formal marriage status
• Burden of proving marriage-like live-in relationship lies on woman

In a significant ruling reflecting changing social realities, the Supreme Court has held that the protection against cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) will also be available to women in long-term live-in relationships that are "in the nature of marriage", even if the couple was not legally married. The top court, however, clarified that the expanded interpretation is confined to proceedings under Section 498A alone and will not automatically extend to other provisions of criminal or civil law.

The bench observed that Section 498A was enacted as a beneficial and protective provision to shield women from cruelty in a domestic setting, and its objective should not be defeated by insisting on the existence of a formal marriage. "When the objective of Section 498A was to provide protection against harassment by the husband or in-laws through wilful conduct causing mental or physical injury, then to say that such harassment can only occur after marriage would be an oversimplification," the court said.

It stressed that the law must evolve with society, noting that long-term live-in relationships have become an accepted reality, particularly in urban India. "Whether or not the woman is married does not have a proximate link to the objective of the provision, which is to prevent cruelty within a household," the court observed.

LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS CAN QUALIFY FOR PROTECTION

The Supreme Court held that Section 498A would apply to live-in relationships that qualify as "relationships in the nature of marriage", where the intent to marry forms an intrinsic part of the relationship.

The protection, the court clarified, is available only to relationships between two consenting adults and not to casual or purely romantic relationships lacking the characteristics of a marriage-like domestic arrangement.

At the same time, the court made it clear that the burden of proving that the relationship was "in the nature of marriage" and not merely a love affair or casual live-in arrangement would lie on the woman seeking protection under Section 498A.

'CRUELTY DOES NOT CHECK AT THE DOOR'

Emphasising the purpose behind the law, the Supreme Court remarked that cruelty does not distinguish between married and unmarried women living in a shared household. "If a woman is in a domestic setup even prior to marriage, which is increasingly a reality today, the protection given to a married woman should also be extended to her," the court said.

In one of the judgment's key observations, the bench stated: "Cruelty, any which way, does not check at the door whether the house it enters is that of a married woman or not. Once it enters, its propensity to destroy is aggravated."

RULING LIMITED TO SECTION 498A

The court clarified that its interpretation is restricted to Section 498A IPC and should not be treated as a precedent for extending similar meaning to other statutory provisions.

The judgment marks a notable expansion of legal protection against domestic cruelty, recognising that household relationships have evolved over the decades since Section 498A was enacted, while balancing that recognition by requiring proof that the live-in relationship was genuinely akin to marriage before the provision can be invoked.

- Ends