Women in long-term live-in relationships protected under anti-cruelty law, no marriage needed: SC

Women in long-term live-in relationships "in the nature of marriage" can now seek protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has ruled, even if the couple never legally married. The court, however, drew a firm boundary, the expanded interpretation applies strictly to Section 498A and cannot be read into other criminal or civil law provisions.

Law can't be limited to formal marriage

The bench held that Section 498A was designed as a protective provision to shield women from cruelty within a domestic setting, and that its purpose shouldn't be undermined by requiring proof of formal marriage. "When the objective of Section 498A was to provide protection against harassment by the husband or in-laws through wilful conduct causing mental or physical injury, then to say that such harassment can only occur after marriage would be an oversimplification," the court said.

The judges pointed out that live-in relationships have become widely accepted, especially in urban India, and the law needs to keep pace. "Whether or not the woman is married does not have a proximate link to the objective of the provision, which is to prevent cruelty within a household," the court observed.

Who qualifies for protection?

The ruling applies to live-in relationships that meet the threshold of being "in the nature of marriage," where an intent to marry is an intrinsic part of the relationship. The court was careful to note that this protection is meant for consenting adults in a marriage-like domestic arrangement, not for casual relationships or short-term romantic involvements.

Importantly, the onus falls on the woman to prove that her relationship was genuinely marriage-like and not merely a casual live-in arrangement or love affair.

"Cruelty does not check at the door"

The bench underlined that cruelty makes no distinction between married and unmarried women in a shared household. "If a woman is in a domestic setup even prior to marriage, which is increasingly a reality today, the protection given to a married woman should also be extended to her," the court said.

In one of its sharpest observations, the bench remarked: "Cruelty, any which way, does not check at the door whether the house it enters is that of a married woman or not. Once it enters, its propensity to destroy is aggravated."

A narrow but significant expansion

The court was clear that this interpretation is confined to Section 498A and shouldn't be treated as precedent for extending similar meaning elsewhere in the law. The judgment reflects a recognition that domestic relationships have evolved since Section 498A was first enacted while still requiring concrete proof that a live-in relationship was genuinely marriage-like before the provision can be invoked.