Bombay High Court Holds Conscious Decision Not to Contest Suit is Not ‘Sufficient Cause’ f

Home / Top Stories / Supreme Court Judgments Section 498A: Supreme Court Extends Cruelty Protection to Live-In Relationships ‘In Nature of Marriage’ X Supreme Court extends Section 498A protection to eligible live-in relationships. The Supreme Court held that Section 498A IPC covers live-in relationships "in the nature of marriage", ruling that denying such women protection against cruelty violates Article 14 of the Constitution while limiting the ruling to Section 498A alone. The Supreme Court has held that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code [now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)], which deals with cruelty and dowry harassment by a husband or his relatives, can also apply to couples in a live-in relationship where the relationship qualifies as a “relationship in the nature of marriage”. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh held that Section 498A would apply to “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage”, where the intent to marry is established as an intrinsic part of the relationship. The Bench clarified that the “live-in relationships” protected under Section 498A are those between two consenting adults . Court, however, made it clear that the proposition of law laid down by it is limited to Section 498A IPC and that the extended interpretation would not affect any other provision. Why did the Supreme Court extend Section 498A protection to live-in relationships? Court held that the distinction between a relationship in the nature of marriage and a marriage, insofar as protection against cruelty is concerned, does not satisfy Article 14 of the Constitution. “When the objective of the Section 498A was to provide coverage to those cases where harassment by husband or in-laws through wilful conduct causing mental or physical injury or driving the woman to suicide, then to say that such harassment can only be caused when they are married and not before that, in our considered view, would be a case of over simplification,” the Bench said. Court observed that “live-in relationships” are today, more or less, a reality, primarily in urban areas, and the law must adapt itself to serve those who choose this form of relationship. The Bench noted that in earlier times, marriage was perceived as the only method by which two individuals could live together for a lifetime, while living together without marriage was considered taboo . Marriage was considered sacrosanct, but this has changed with evolving societal standards. “Living together, prior to marriage, is not unheard of or unacceptable anymore,” the Bench said. Court said the law is a living organism and must respond to changes in society. What did the Supreme Court say about Section 498A and “husband”? Court examined whether Section 498A could be interpreted to include a man in a “live-in relationship”, although the provision specifically uses the word “husband” . The Bench rejected the contention that since Section 498A is a penal provision, it must be interpreted strictly and confined only to a husband married to a woman in the traditional sense. “The interpretation given to this penal provision must be an interpretation which keeps in view the reformative objective, or else its mandate will be defeated,” the Bench said. Court held that the word “husband” must receive a purposive interpretation in the context of a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, keeping in view the reformative, corrective and socially beneficial intent of Section 498A. It held that a woman in such a relationship would also be entitled to the protection provided under Section 498A. What safeguards apply before arrest in such cases? The Supreme Court also directed that the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) must be strictly followed. “No person in a relationship in the nature of marriage having been accused of committing cruelty against a woman, being either the live-in partner ‘in the nature