New Delhi: A live-in relationship between a man and a woman which is in the “nature of marriage” would fall within the purview of domestic violence law, the Supreme Court held Monday, as it extended the application of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty by husband or his family) to live-in relationships.
The ruling opens a window for women in live-in relationships to prosecute their live-in partner under section 498A or its equivalent section in the Bharatiya Nyay Samhita. This would be in addition to the Domestic Violence Act, which already covers live-in relationships.
A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh said there is no distinction between a legally married woman and a woman in relationship akin to marriage. It added that such to distinguish the two is unconstitutional and violates Article 14.
But the bench clarified that the ruling is applicable only to those “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage”, where an intent to marry is established.
The court’s ruling came on an appeal challenging a Karnataka High Court judgement, which refused to quash domestic cruelty proceedings against a “husband”, who claimed he was exempted from section 498A of the IPC because he was in a live-in relationship with the complainant and that the law was not applicable in such a scenario.
Rejecting the appeal, the court said: “When the objective of the section 498A was to provide coverage to those cases where harassment by husband or in-laws through willful conduct causing mental or physical injury or driving the woman to suicide, then to say that such harassment an only be caused when they are married and not before that, in our considered view would be a case of over simplification.”
The distinction lacks a rational nexus with the objective of preventing domestic violence and is offensive to Article 14, the bench added.
Potential abuse of law
Senior advocate Sanjay Nuli, who appeared for the husband in the matter, said the judgment’s intention is not under question, but raised concerns about the potential abuse of the law.
“We have come across various SC judgments that have warned against misuse of domestic violence law. The phrase ‘live-in relationship in the nature of marriage is open-ended and subjective,” Nuli told ThePrint.
The Karnataka High Court had refused to quash the section 498A case, saying the term “husband” must be given a “purposive and expansive” construction and cannot be denied merely on the technical ground of void or no formal marriage.
The SC bench refused to interfere with the HC’s opinion, as it categorised section 498A as a law meant to address cruelty and harassment inflicted upon women within domestic relationships, including conduct causing physical or mental injury or driving a woman to suicide. Cruelty, the court added, does not become less harmful because the parties are not formally married.
The judgment weighed in on the K.S. Puttaswamy verdict declaring privacy a fundamental right and observed that if the law grants individuals the right and freedom to choose their partners, then protection should be equally applicable and not based on the form that relationship takes.
“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 court asked.
Lack of legal recognition of a relationship cannot be a ground to deny legal protection to women, the SC said.
The judgment, however, stressed that the safeguards outlined in the Supreme Court judgment in the Arnesh Kumar case shall be strictly followed in such cases. The Arnesh Kumar decision makes it compulsory for prosecuting agencies to issue summons to an accused before arresting them in cases that attract more than seven years of jail.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Live-in couples in small town India have it rough – Varanasi to Vadodara, Aligarh to Alwar
Men will look at this verdict as just another instance of unjust jurisprudence.
The problem with such legal attitudes is that there may come a point when the men declare that they will not accept these laws – as the law obviously is tilted in favour of women. When 50% of the population decides to defy the law, what will the honourable judges do? Go out on the streets and enforce the law themselves?
This frivolousness needs to end. Women are equal to men – that’s what a modern independent woman like me believes and lives by. We don;t need the SC or anybody else as our godfather – we can manage on our own. To the SC – Thanks but no thanks.