- Supreme Court extends Section 498A protection to certain live-in relationships.
- Protection applies where the relationship is in the nature of marriage and intent to marry is established.
- Court says denying such protection could violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Bench upheld a Karnataka High Court decision refusing to quash proceedings against a man.
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 3rd Aug: The Supreme Court has ruled that women in live-in relationships that are “in the nature of marriage” can receive protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty and harassment by a husband or his relatives.
A bench comprising Justices Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Sanjay Karol clarified that the ruling would apply strictly to live-in relationships where the intention to marry has been established.
The court observed that providing protection against cruelty to a legally married woman while denying similar protection to a woman in a relationship resembling marriage would be discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law.
“When the objective of 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.
Distinction Has ‘No Rational Nexus’: SC
The Supreme Court said the distinction between marriage and a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage, when considered in the context of the protection envisaged under Section 498A, had no rational connection with the objective of preventing domestic violence.
“This distinction between married and live-in relationship in the nature of marriage… has no rational nexus with the object of preventing domestic violence and is as such offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the court observed.
The observations came while the Supreme Court upheld a Karnataka High Court decision that had rejected a man’s plea seeking cancellation of proceedings against him under Section 498A.
The man had argued that Section 498A could not be invoked because the complainant was in a live-in relationship with him rather than a legally recognised marriage.
The Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that, in qualifying cases where a live-in relationship has the characteristics of marriage and an intention to marry is established, the absence of a formal marriage would not by itself exclude a woman from the protection envisaged against cruelty.
