The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a man in a live-in relationship that is “in the nature of marriage” can be prosecuted for the offence of cruelty towards a woman, holding that excluding such women from the ambit of the penal law merely because they were not formally married would amount to discriminatory treatment.
<figure class="art
In a judgment that significantly expands the reach of India’s law criminalising cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman, a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh held that although Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) uses the expression “husband”, the provision cannot be interpreted so narrowly as to deprive women in marriage-like relationships of criminal remedies against cruelty merely because the relationship was not formally solemnised.
“The same evil of domestic cruelty can manifest regardless of whether the woman has a formal marriage certificate or is in a relationship that bears all the essential characteristics of marriage,” reasoned the bench, holding that the law must be interpreted in a manner that advances its social purpose rather than defeats it. Section 498A of the old IPC corresponds to Section 85 and Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Also Read |Pre-marital relationship no stain on character: SC
The ruling marks the first authoritative pronouncement extending the penal provision to qualifying live-in relationships, while making it clear that the protection is not available to every romantic relationship or casual live-in arrangement.
The court stressed that only those relationships which satisfy the judicially evolved test of being “in the nature of marriage”, coupled with evidence that both parties intended to marry, would attract Section 498A. The initial burden of establishing such intent would lie on the woman invoking the provision.
The judgment came while deciding an appeal arising out of Karnataka, where criminal proceedings alleging cruelty were challenged on the ground that the parties had never formally married.
Advocate Nina R Nariman assisted the court as amicus curiae while senior counsel Anand Sanjay M Nuli represented the husband in the matter.
The verdict is notable for its extensive discussion on statutory interpretation, with the bench rejecting a rigid literal reading of the penal provision in favour of a purposive construction.
Tracing the legislative object behind Section 498A, the court said that Parliament introduced the offence to combat the pervasive social evil of cruelty inflicted upon women within domestic relationships. Restricting the provision solely to legally wedded wives, despite recognising marriage-like relationships in other branches of law, would frustrate that objective and create an artificial distinction between similarly situated women.
The bench acknowledged the settled principle that penal statutes are ordinarily construed strictly. However, it held that strict interpretation cannot become an instrument to defeat the very purpose for which a law was enacted.
Also Read |Supreme Court says wife found living in adultery can’t claim maintenance
Drawing upon a line of earlier decisions, the bench said that the law has progressively recognised that certain live-in relationships deserve legal protection because they mirror the rights, obligations and vulnerabilities associated with marriage.
The Union government had argued that women in live-in relationships already have adequate protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, making it unnecessary to extend Section 498A.
The Supreme Court rejected that contention. It held that the two enactments operate in distinct fields and serve different objectives. While the Domestic Violence Act primarily provides civil remedies such as protection orders, residence rights, maintenance and compensation, Section 498A creates criminal liability for acts of cruelty.
The availability of civil remedies, the bench said, cannot become a ground to deny criminal protection where the ingredients of an offence are otherwise established. To hold otherwise would leave women in marriage-like relationships remediless against conduct that Parliament intended to criminalise simply because the relationship lacked formal legal recognition.
Even while extending the protection, the court repeatedly cautioned that not every live-in relationship would qualify. Reiterating the principles laid down in Indra Sarma judgment (2013), the bench said courts must examine several indicators, including the duration of the relationship, whether the parties shared a household, pooled financial resources, presented themselves socially as spouses, had children, and otherwise conducted themselves as a married couple. The court went a step further by holding that criminal prosecution under Section 498A would additionally require proof of a mutual intention to marry, ensuring that transient or casual relationships do not fall within the penal provision.
Also Read |‘Impermissible’ to judge women by clothes: SC panel urges overhaul of language adopted in sexual offence cases
Mindful of longstanding concerns over misuse of Section 498A, the bench also directed that the safeguards laid down in the Arnesh Kumar judgment (2014) would continue to apply in full force. Police officers, it said, cannot mechanically arrest an accused merely because an FIR has been registered. They must undertake a proper preliminary assessment, satisfy themselves that the statutory requirements are met, and comply with the safeguards governing arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure before depriving a person of liberty.
The court clarified that its ruling is confined to Section 498A and should not automatically be extended to other penal provisions where different statutory language or legislative intent may apply.
