Supreme Court extends domestic cruelty offence to live-in relationships
The Supreme Court held that the criminal offence of cruelty, earlier confined to a legally married woman and her husband or his relatives, can extend to a live-in relationship that is "in the nature of marriage"
The Bench held that a partner in such a relationship can be prosecuted for cruelty where the couple lived together as spouses and had intended to marry
The Court clarified that not every live-in relationship qualifies; the woman seeking protection must first establish that the relationship resembled marriage and that both partners intended to marry
The ruling was grounded in the reasoning that denying protection to a woman in a marriage-like relationship, while granting it to a legally married woman, would be discriminatory
Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS — Cruelty by Husband or Relatives
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, now re-enacted as Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman, covering both physical harm and conduct likely to drive her to suicide or grave injury, or harassment linked to unlawful dowry demands.
Key Details
- Originally inserted into the IPC in 1983 via the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, specifically to address dowry-related cruelty and harassment
- Re-enacted as Section 85 (punishment) read with Section 86 (definition of cruelty) of the BNS, which came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the IPC
- Punishable with imprisonment up to three years and a fine; the offence is cognizable and non-bailable
- The provision's text refers specifically to a "husband" and his "relatives," which is why its application traditionally required a valid or legally recognised marriage
The ruling extends the reach of this provision, historically read as applying only within a legal marriage, to live-in partnerships that meet the "marriage-like" threshold — a significant interpretive expansion rather than a legislative amendment.
"Relationship in the Nature of Marriage" — Domestic Violence Act, 2005
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was the first Indian statute to expressly extend protection to women in relationships "in the nature of marriage," not just legally married women, by defining "domestic relationship" broadly under Section 2(f).
Key Details
- Section 2(f) defines "domestic relationship" to include a relationship between two persons who live together in a shared household, connected by marriage or "a relationship in the nature of marriage," among other familial ties
- In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Supreme Court laid down criteria for such a relationship: the couple must hold themselves out to society as spouses, be of legal age to marry, be otherwise qualified to enter a legal marriage (including being unmarried), and have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period
- In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Court further distinguished genuine marriage-like live-in relationships from casual or adulterous ones, holding that not all live-in arrangements attract statutory protection
- The 2005 Act itself provides civil remedies (protection orders, residence rights, maintenance) rather than criminal punishment
The present ruling effectively imports the Domestic Violence Act's "relationship in the nature of marriage" standard into the criminal cruelty provision, aligning the criminal law's protective scope with the civil remedy framework that already recognised live-in partners.
Article 14 and the Equal Protection Rationale
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, and has been used by courts to strike down or reinterpret provisions that arbitrarily exclude comparable classes of persons from a legal protection.
Key Details
- Article 14 permits reasonable classification but prohibits arbitrary exclusion of persons similarly situated for the purpose of a law's object
- Courts have progressively used Article 14 reasoning to extend protective welfare legislation (such as maintenance and domestic violence remedies) to live-in partners, treating the underlying vulnerability, not the formal marital status, as the relevant criterion
- This differs from cases where Article 14 is used to strike down a provision entirely; here, it informed an expansive judicial reading of an existing provision's scope
The Bench reasoned that confining cruelty protection strictly to legally married women, while excluding women in functionally identical marriage-like relationships, is difficult to justify and risks violating the equality guarantee.
- Provision extended: Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS (cruelty by husband or relatives)
- BNS in force since: 1 July 2024, replacing the IPC, 1860
- Section 498A inserted into IPC: 1983, via the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act
- Governing civil-law precedent for "relationship in the nature of marriage": Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(f)
- Key precedents on live-in relationships: D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010); Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)
- Threshold applied: relationship must resemble marriage with a shown intent to marry — not every live-in arrangement qualifies