The Supreme Court has ruled that women in live-in relationships that are "in the nature of marriage" can seek protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), extending the scope of the anti-cruelty provision beyond formally married couples in specific circumstances.
A Bench of Justices Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Sanjay Karol clarified that the protection would apply only where the live-in relationship bears the essential characteristics of a marriage and there is evidence that the parties intended to marry. The Court emphasised that such relationships cannot be excluded from legal safeguards merely because the marriage was never formally solemnised.
The Bench observed that limiting Section 498A solely to legally married women would defeat the purpose of the provision, which was enacted to protect women from cruelty inflicted by their husbands or their relatives. It held that denying similar protection to women in marriage-like live-in relationships would amount to an arbitrary classification, violating the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Explaining its reasoning, the Court said that harassment, whether physical or mental, does not become any less serious merely because it occurs before a formal marriage. It noted that the objective of Section 498A is to address wilful conduct by a husband or his relatives that causes grave mental or physical harm or drives a woman to suicide, and that such abuse can also arise in relationships that closely resemble marriage.
The Bench observed that drawing a distinction between legally married women and women in live-in relationships that are effectively marital in character has no reasonable connection with the purpose of preventing domestic violence or protecting women from cruelty. Such a distinction, it said, would therefore fail the constitutional test of equality.
The ruling came while the Supreme Court upheld an order of the Karnataka High Court, which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a man under Section 498A. The High Court had rejected his contention that the anti-cruelty provision was inapplicable because the couple had been in a live-in relationship rather than a legally recognised marriage. The Supreme Court affirmed that, in appropriate cases where the relationship is akin to marriage, the protection of Section 498A can be invoked.