Cruelty safeguards for live-ins like in marriages. But there's an intent clause

For years, the law drew a clear line between marriage and live-in relationships. But that line has now been blurred when it comes to protecting women from cruelty.The Supreme Court held on August 3 that a live-in relationship between a man and a woman which is in the "nature of marriage" falls within the purview of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his family members. It corresponds to Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.The division bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh invoked Article 14 of the Constitution, the Right to Equality, to state that there is no distinction between a legally married woman and a woman in a relationship akin to marriage.However, the protection will extend only to relationships that qualify as established "in the nature of marriage", where the intention to marry in the future is clear and understood. In criminal law, 'mens rea' or intention is one of two facets required to prove a crime, the other being 'actus reus' or action. Intention is more difficult to prove and now the court requires an intent to marry to be proved for a case where the female in a live-in relationship wants to file a case under Section 498-A. This has ignited debates over what action, omission, or statement would constitute such intention.MARRIED OR UNMARRIED, PROTECTION TO BOTHThe Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act was enacted in 2005 to provide emergency civil remedies to women facing abuse in marriage. Before its enactment, domestic abuse was strictly treated as a criminal offense under Section 498-A. Both laws act as complementary provisions to extend justice and rehabilitation to women. While criminal law punishes the abuser, the DV Act focusses on protection and relief-based measures. Unlike criminal law, the DV Act extends to live-in partners, sisters, and mothers. With this Supreme Court judgment, Section 498-A now also extends to women in live-in relationships.The case before the court, Lokesh BH versus State of Karnataka (2026), involved an appeal seeking the quashing of two criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The proceedings alleged cruelty, dowry harassment, physical assault, and other IPC offenses including Section 498-A against him.The "husband" appealed against the Karnataka High Court judgment that refused to quash proceedings despite his claim of exemption due to a live-in relationship. The High Court declined to quash proceedings, stating that "husband" in Section 498-A deserved a purposive and expansive interpretation extending to a relationship possessing the attributes of marriage.The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, observing that when the objective of Section 498-A was to cover harassment by a husband or in-laws through willful conduct causing mental or physical injury or driving the woman to suicide, saying such harassment can only occur when married would be an oversimplification.The court also followed the legal doctrine of Mischief Rule and Purposive Interpretation. Under this approach, a law's true intention is found through a four-fold test: the common law before its enactment, the 'mischief' or defect the common law failed to address, the remedy or law made Parliament as a solution, andthe true reason for that remedy.Referring to multiple past cases, the court held that it is bound to adopt an interpretation that suppresses the defect and advances the solution the most, thereby giving effect to the true intention of the legislature.CRUELTY IS NOT WEIGHED AGAINST MARRIAGEThe bench reiterated that cruelty is equally harmful whether or not the parties were formally married. It invoked the landmark KS Puttaswamy versus Union of India (2018) judgment declaring privacy a fundamental right to hold that lack of legal recognition of live-in relationships should not deny legal protection to them.The Supreme Court asked why there should be any difference in protection if a woman faces cruelty at the hands of her partner or his family, making protection equally applicable to married and unmarried women in a relationship in the nature of marriage. Revisiting Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co (2018), it reiterated that interpretation of law must give effect to the intent of the lawmakers.If a purely legal reading produces absurdity and anomaly, it cannot be allowed to defeat the objective of the law.Except for Section 31, the DV Act creates no criminal liability. Upholding Article 21, the Court stated the law recognises individual freedom to choose a partner as an inextricable part of dignity and personal liberty.It added that to be legally classified, a law requires differentiation that is intelligible and a rationale to establish the objective of the legislation. For domestic cruelty, it held it inappropriate to make a distinction between a married woman and a woman in a relationship established in the nature of marriage.Summarising authoritative precedents, the Court noted that the purpose of penalising cruelty was to introduce deterrence against condemnable behaviour towards women, which existing laws failed to address. The objective was reformative, cloaked with punishment.POSSIBLE MISUSE OF CRIMINAL LAWSenior Advocate Sanjay Nuli, representing the appellant, raised concerns over potential abuse of domestic violence law.In determining a "relationship established in the nature of marriage", courts look for evidence demonstrating mutual intent to simulate a marriage. This includes how partners present themselves publicly through social events, digital records, and witness testimonies.Evidence of shared living must be presented via joint address documentation and financial integration. Joint assets, domestic expenses, and financial dependency are other vital components. Courts do not protect casual stay-overs, single-night stands, or mere companionship.An exclusive sexual relationship mirroring a marital arrangement, such as planning for children, serves as proof. Explicit written or recorded evidence showing a direct commitment to marry is prima facie evidence of such a relationship "established in the nature of marriage".But establishing this intention through evidence presents a complex hurdle that works both ways. Genuine victims might struggle to produce concrete proof of a mutual, unwritten understanding, while an accused partner faces equal difficulty in disproving intention if their cohabitation is established.Indian jurisprudence strictly distinguishes a "relationship established in the nature of marriage" from a mere "false promise to marry". While the latter hinges on proving that a partner's consent was obtained through deception at the onset (a threshold recently codified under Section 69 of the BNS), now for live-in relationships, Section 498-A requires proving a sustained, shared domesticity accompanied by a genuine, ongoing intent to marry. Exceptions to this include lack of legal capacity, underage parties, or commercial, transient arrangements.The Supreme Court clarified that this expansion applies only to a "relationship established in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is an advanced stage of a live-in relationship. Relying on D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Court reiterated the distinction between marriage and a "relationship established in the nature of marriage" while extending the DV Act to both, not criminal law.But now, acknowledging the limitations of the DV Act because it is a civil law, the Court held that it would be a misstatement of law to regard civil remedies as adequate protection equivalent to Section 498-A.The court also reasserted safeguards against arrest of the accused as per Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar (2014), directing that no live-in partner in the nature of marriage or his relatives should be arrested without compliance with mandatory safeguards and preliminary inquiries governing arrests under Section 498-A.The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) has reported that Section 498-A consistently constitutes the single largest category of crimes against women in India, accounting for 27% to 33% of all reported offences. Of these, 4% to 6% are classified by police as deliberately false complaints, 3% as civil disputes, and 7% as true but lacking sufficient evidence. Notably, the conviction rate under the provision remains low at 13% to 20%, contrasted against an acquittal rate of 80% to 87%.While this judgment significantly expands the statutory ambit of Section 498-A, the underlying statistics suggest that expanding access alone may not automatically translate into effective justice. Whether the legal framework requires a systemic overhaul of investigation and trial mechanisms, or if extending statutory coverage is sufficient, remains to be seen.- EndsPublished By: Shounak SanyalPublished On: Aug 8, 2026 15:16 IST