Can protection against domestic cruelty extend to live-in relationships? | Explained
The Supreme Court held that a partner in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but only if the relationship is "in the nature of marriage" and there was a clear, mutual intention between the parties to marry.
The ruling came while the Court dismissed an appeal seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from a Karnataka case, upholding a Karnataka High Court order from November 2025.
The Court clarified that this expanded interpretation applies specifically to Section 498A and does not automatically extend to other statutory provisions.
The bench distinguished Section 498A (which creates criminal liability and therefore needs a stricter threshold) from the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (which provides civil remedies and already recognizes "relationships in the nature of marriage").
Section 498A IPC (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives)
Section 498A was inserted into the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, to criminalize cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a "woman" — historically interpreted as requiring a valid marriage. It defines cruelty to include conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury, or harassment linked to unlawful dowry demands. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the IPC from July 1, 2024, the equivalent offence is Section 85 (cruelty by husband or his relatives), with the cruelty definition carried over in Section 86.
Key Details
- Introduced by: Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, inserted into the IPC.
- Punishment: imprisonment up to 3 years and fine (unchanged in the BNS equivalent).
- BNS 2023 renumbering: IPC Section 498A corresponds to BNS Section 85 (offence) and Section 86 (definition of cruelty), effective July 1, 2024.
- Traditionally applied only to legally wedded wives; this judgment extends its applicability to a defined category of live-in partners.
The ruling widens the class of women who can invoke this criminal cruelty provision beyond formally married wives, provided they meet the "relationship in the nature of marriage" test — a significant interpretive extension of a 1983-origin provision.
"Relationship in the Nature of Marriage" — Judicial Test
This phrase originates from the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005, which defines a "domestic relationship" to include relationships "in the nature of marriage," not just formal marriage. The Supreme Court first laid down criteria for this test in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469, holding that the couple must hold themselves out to society as akin to spouses, be of legal age to marry, be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage (including being unmarried), and have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period. The test was further refined in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), which held that not all live-in relationships qualify — for instance, relationships where one partner is already married do not automatically get PWDVA protection.
Key Details
- Governing statute: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — a civil law providing protection orders, residence orders, and maintenance, not criminal punishment.
- Landmark case: D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 — laid down the "akin to spouses" test.
- Refining case: Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) — held existing legal marriage of one partner ordinarily bars PWDVA relief.
- The current judgment borrows the PWDVA's "relationship in the nature of marriage" test but applies it to the criminal offence under Section 498A/BNS Section 85, while insisting on additional proof of mutual intention to marry — a stricter standard than the civil-law threshold.
The Court's reasoning shows a two-track approach in Indian law: civil protection (PWDVA, 2005) for qualifying live-in relationships is broader and remedial, while criminal liability (Section 498A/BNS Section 85) for the same category of relationships now requires the same "nature of marriage" test plus proof of an intention to marry, reflecting the higher burden of proof required in criminal law.
- Section 498A IPC: inserted by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983; punishment up to 3 years' imprisonment plus fine.
- BNS 2023 equivalent: Section 85 (offence), Section 86 (definition of cruelty); BNS in force from July 1, 2024.
- PWDVA, 2005: civil law recognizing "relationship in the nature of marriage" as a domestic relationship.
- Key precedent: D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469.
- Refining precedent: Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013).
- 2026 ruling arose from an appeal against a Karnataka High Court order of November 2025.