Domestic Cruelty Protection in Live-in Relationships

Context

The Supreme Court has held that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can apply to certain live-in relationships where the relationship is “in the nature of marriage” and the partners have an intent to marry.

Legal Framework

1. Section 498A IPC made cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a woman a criminal offence.
2. The IPC has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Sections 85 and 86 BNS deal with cruelty by a husband or his relatives and define the relevant form of cruelty.
3. The present judgment directly concerns the interpretation of Section 498A IPC.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

1. The Court adopted a purposive interpretation, under which a law is interpreted in light of the objective it seeks to achieve.
2. It held that excluding women in qualifying marriage-like relationships from criminal protection against cruelty raises concerns under Article 14, which guarantees equality before law.
3. The judgment also recognised the relevance of Article 21, particularly the constitutional protection of personal choice and dignity.

Conditions for Protection

1. The ruling does not cover every live-in relationship.
2. Courts may consider factors such as:
   • Shared household and domestic life
   • Financial interdependence
   • Continuity of the relationship
   • Representation of the couple as spouses
3. The partners must also have an intent to marry.
4. The initial burden of establishing this intention rests on the woman seeking protection.

Difference from the Domestic Violence Act

1. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 covers certain relationships “in the nature of marriage.”
2. It primarily provides civil remedies, including protection orders, residence-related relief and monetary relief.
3. Section 498A, by contrast, provides a criminal remedy for cruelty.
4. Therefore, the two laws provide distinct forms of legal protection.

Safeguards

1. The ruling does not make criminal prosecution automatic merely because two people lived together.
2. The Court reiterated the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, particularly against unnecessary or mechanical arrest.
3. Investigating authorities must therefore follow the prescribed safeguards before taking coercive action.

Key Challenge

1. “Intent to marry” may be difficult to establish because it concerns the parties’ subjective intention.
2. The Court has not prescribed a single conclusive test for proving it.
3. Its existence will therefore have to be assessed from the evidence and circumstances of each case.

Conclusion

The judgment extends criminal protection to a limited category of marriage-like live-in relationships while retaining safeguards and evidentiary requirements. It seeks to balance equality and personal dignity with responsible use of criminal law.

FAQs

Q1. What is Section 498A IPC?

Section 498A IPC made cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a woman a criminal offence.

Q2. What are Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS?

Section 85 BNS deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives, while Section 86 defines the relevant form of cruelty.

Q3. What is purposive interpretation?

It means interpreting a law by considering the purpose it seeks to achieve, rather than relying only on its literal wording.

Q4. Which constitutional provisions are relevant to the ruling?

The judgment invokes Article 14, concerning equality before law, and recognises the relevance of Article 21, concerning life, personal liberty and individual dignity.

Q5. Who bears the initial burden of proving intent to marry?

The woman seeking protection bears the initial burden of establishing the required intent to marry.

Q6. What is the significance of Arnesh Kumar safeguards?

They seek to prevent unnecessary arrests and require investigating authorities to follow prescribed safeguards before taking a person into custody.

Q7. What is the main issue likely to arise in future cases?

Courts will have to determine whether the evidence establishes the required intent to marry and whether the relationship possesses the characteristics of a marriage-like union.