{"id":117236,"date":"2026-08-05T09:03:11","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T03:33:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=117236"},"modified":"2026-08-05T09:03:11","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T03:33:11","slug":"domestic-cruelty-protection-extended-to-live-in-couples","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/domestic-cruelty-protection-extended-to-live-in-couples\/","title":{"rendered":"Domestic Cruelty Protection Extended to Live-in Couples: Supreme Court&#8217;s Landmark Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>Domestic Cruelty Protection Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, ruled that protection against domestic cruelty under criminal law \u2014 ordinarily available to married women under <\/span><b>Section 498A<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> of the erstwhile IPC \u2014 now extends to women in live-in relationships, provided the couple shares an &#8220;<\/span><b>intent to marry<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.&#8221;\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Since the IPC has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the ruling will likely apply to the corresponding provision, <\/span><b>Section 85 of the BNS<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Legal Position Until Now<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 498A, IPC penalises a husband or his relatives for subjecting a woman to cruelty.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Since the provision explicitly uses the word &#8220;husband,&#8221; its application was traditionally limited to legally valid marriages.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Over the years, the Supreme Court had expanded this to <\/span><b>cover men<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> who induced a woman into a legally void or voidable marriage (e.g., by concealing a prior subsisting marriage) \u2014 holding that such men cannot escape prosecution by claiming they were never a &#8220;husband.&#8221;<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Background: The Case That Triggered the Ruling<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The accused man sought to quash a <\/span><b>Section 498A case<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> filed by his partner, arguing his marriage to her was invalid since he was already married to someone else.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Karnataka High Court rejected this, ruling that a man who induces a woman to believe she is lawfully married to him cannot evade criminal responsibility merely because no valid marriage existed in law.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This led to his appeal before the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Beyond Void Marriages: A Purposive Interpretation<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Rather than confining itself to the narrow issue of void marriages, the bench addressed the broader question: can a man in a live-in relationship be prosecuted under Section 498A?<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">SC adopted a &#8220;<\/span><b>purposive interpretation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">,&#8221; holding that since the law&#8217;s original objective was to deter domestic cruelty, it must adapt to changing social realities \u2014 observing that &#8220;cruelty, any which way, does not check at the door, whether the house it enters is that of a married woman or not.&#8221;<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court held that denying criminal law protection to a cohabiting woman while granting it to a married woman has &#8220;no rational nexus with the object of preventing domestic violence&#8221; and is thus &#8220;offensive to Article 14&#8221; (Right to Equality) of the Constitution.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Why the Domestic Violence Act Isn&#8217;t Sufficient<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Both the petitioner and the Union government argued that unmarried women are already protected under the <\/span><b>Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, which covers relationships &#8220;in the nature of marriage.&#8221;\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court rejected this, distinguishing the two laws:\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The DV Act is primarily civil legislation, offering remedies like maintenance and protection orders.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 498A is a criminal provision, backed by the force of criminal deterrence.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Equating the two would be a &#8220;misstatement of law&#8221; given their fundamentally different legal character and consequences.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Why &#8220;Intent to Marry&#8221; Is the Key Qualifier<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To determine which live-in couples qualify for this protection, the Court borrowed the concept of a &#8220;<\/span><b>relationship in the nature of marriage<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&#8221; from the DV Act \u2014 a narrower subset of general live-in relationships.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Drawing on a 2013 judgment, the Court reiterated the features of such a relationship: pooling financial resources, shared domestic arrangements, a sexual relationship, and holding themselves out to society as spouses.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Crucially, the recent ruling added a new requirement: the couple must also possess an &#8220;intent to marry.&#8221;<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><b>Rationale<\/b><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Many relationships may satisfy all criteria of being &#8220;in the nature of marriage,&#8221; yet the partners may never intend to marry.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Without this intent, the relationship cannot be equated with marriage for invoking a penal provision with serious consequences.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court held: &#8220;Those relationships that are in the nature of marriage and also have the requisite intent to marry are the closest to marriage itself&#8221; \u2014 and only these qualify for Section 498A protection.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><b>Burden of proof<\/b><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The initial burden to establish &#8220;intent to marry&#8221; lies on the female partner seeking protection.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The judgment, however, did not specify concrete parameters for legally establishing this subjective intent.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Conclusion<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">By extending Section 498A&#8217;s protection to live-in partners with a demonstrable &#8220;intent to marry,&#8221; the Supreme Court has adopted a purposive, equality-driven interpretation of criminal law, recognising that cruelty is not contingent on formal marital status.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">However, the absence of clear parameters for proving &#8220;intent to marry&#8221; leaves an evidentiary challenge that courts will have to navigate case by case.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/explained-law\/supreme-court-live-in-relationship-cruelty-intent-to-marry-10816376\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">IE<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> | <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/supreme-court-extends-domestic-cruelty-offence-to-live-in-relationships\/article71302401.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">TH<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Domestic Cruelty Protection now extends to eligible live-in couples with intent to marry, as the Supreme Court expands criminal safeguards under Section 498A\/BNS.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":117240,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[9258,60,22,59],"class_list":["post-117236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","tag-domestic-cruelty-protection","tag-mains-articles","tag-upsc-current-affairs","tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs-tag","no-featured-image-padding"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117236","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117236"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117236\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":117238,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117236\/revisions\/117238"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/117240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}