'Why Should There be Any Difference?': SC Extends IPC Section 498A To Live-In Relationships 'In The Nature Of Marriage'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (August 3) extended the protection of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, to women in live-in relationships which are “in the nature of marriage”, observing that excluding them would amount to discriminatory treatment. The top court observed that a man in such a relationship can be prosecuted for domestic cruelty under the section, LiveLaw reported.

The top court, however, clarified that the ruling is applicable only to live-in relationships which qualify as "relationships in the nature of marriage", meaning the intent to marry is established.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh said that distinguishing a legally married woman and a woman in a relationship akin to marriage, for the purpose of protection against cruelty, would be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14.

Section 498A of the IPC makes cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a woman a punishable offence, with imprisonment of up to three years.

“Why should there be any difference in the protection that is given to a woman if she faces cruelty at the hands of the husband/partner or his family members?” the bench questioned, highlighting the discrimination in applicability of the provision between a married woman and a woman living in a live-in relationship in the 'nature of a marriage'.

The Supreme Court gave the verdict while upholding the Karnataka high court's decision, which had refused to quash proceedings for cruelty against the petitioner, husband, who had claimed exemption from prosecution under Section 498A IPC, arguing that the provision is not applicable to live-in relationships.

The petitioner was accused of subjecting the complainant to cruelty and had contended before the Karnataka high court that no valid marriage existed between them, and therefore Section 498A IPC could not be invoked. The complainant claimed that they had been in a valid subsisting marriage.

The high court rejected the petitioner's plea for quashing of proceedings, holding that the term "husband" in Section 498A must be given a purposive and expansive construction. Aggrieved, the husband filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Per the LiveLaw report, the top court gave a purposive interpretation to the word "husband" under Section 498A IPC, noting that it includes a man in a relationship which is “in the nature of marriage”, thus applying to live-in relationships that qualify as akin to marriage, with the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof.

“When the objective of the 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… This distinction between “married” and “live-in relationship in the nature of marriage”, in as much as it relates to the protection envisaged by Section 498A, 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 bench observed.

“Section 498A is held to be applicable to “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof,” it added.

Referring to the precedents of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), the top court observed that when the law grants individuals the freedom to choose their relationships, it cannot deny them legal protection because of the form that relationship takes.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.