Supreme Court holds live-in partners protected under domestic violence provisions

Indian Polity & Judiciary · 4 August 2026 · Based on Indian Express (original report)

2-minute summary

In a landmark judgment, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh held that women in live-in relationships are protected under penal provisions against domestic cruelty—formerly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Applying a 'purposive interpretation', the court observed that domestic cruelty does not stop depending on whether a woman is formally married or cohabiting. However, the apex court added a vital caveat: for criminal law protection to apply, the couple must share a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' along with a clear 'intent to marry'. The court rejected the argument that the civil remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), 2005 were sufficient, emphasizing the fundamental difference between civil remedies and criminal deterrence. The ruling grounded its rationale in Article 14 of the Constitution, stating that denying penal protection to unmarried cohabiting women facing cruelty lacks a rational nexus with the objective of preventing domestic violence.

Why it's in the news

The Supreme Court extended protection against domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the erstwhile IPC (now Section 85 of the BNS) to women in live-in relationships who share an 'intent to marry'. The judgment established that lack of a formal marriage cannot deny women access to criminal law deterrence against domestic violence.

Background and context

Section 498A of the IPC was enacted to penalize cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband or his relatives. Traditionally, legal application was strictly confined to validly married couples due to the explicit use of the word 'husband'. Over time, judicial interpretation expanded this scope to cover void or voidable marriages—such as cases where a man fraudulently induced a woman into marriage by suppressing a pre-existing legal marriage. In the current case, an accused man sought to quash a Section 498A case on the grounds that his existing marriage rendered his relationship with the complainant invalid. The Karnataka High Court dismissed his plea, and on appeal, the Supreme Court utilized purposive interpretation to address the broader question of live-in relationships. The court recognized that social realities have evolved, requiring criminal statutes protecting fundamental rights to adapt rather than remaining strictly literal.

Constitutional provisions

• Article 14 — Right to Equality before law. The court held that differentiating between married and cohabiting women facing cruelty lacks a rational nexus to the objective of preventing domestic violence.
• Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty, guaranteeing living with human dignity and freedom from violence in personal relationships.

Committees and reports

• Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report — Recommended comprehensive reforms in criminal law regarding crimes against women, emphasizing the need to recognize non-formalized unions and strengthen criminal protections against domestic violence.

Government schemes

• Mission Shakti (Sambhal Sub-scheme - One Stop Centres & Women Helpline) — Provides integrated support and emergency assistance to women facing domestic violence and cruelty in domestic settings.

Mains practice: 'Judicial interpretation of criminal statutes must adapt to evolving social realities while maintaining legal safeguards.' Discuss in the context of the Supreme Court's extension of domestic cruelty provisions to live-in partners.

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, extended protection against domestic cruelty under Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) to women in live-in relationships who share an 'intent to marry'. This marks a significant evolution in Indian jurisprudence, applying purposive interpretation to align penal statutes with modern societal realities.

• Constitutional Rationale & Equality: The court held that denying criminal law protection to cohabiting women facing domestic cruelty violates Article 14 (Right to Equality). The distinction between a married woman and a cohabiting partner lacks a rational nexus with the objective of preventing domestic abuse.

• Distinct Roles of Civil and Criminal Law: Responding to arguments that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), 2005 suffices, the court emphasized that civil legislation primarily provides monetary and maintenance relief. In contrast, penal provisions under Section 498A/BNS 85 serve the critical function of criminal deterrence against bodily and psychological cruelty.

• Legal Safeguards and Thresholds: To prevent potential misuse and balance legal certainty, the court established a specific threshold. Criminal protection applies only to live-in relationships that constitute a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' combined with a demonstrated 'intent to marry'. The initial burden of proof rests on the woman claiming protection.

• Societal Impact: This ruling provides legislative deterrence to non-formalized unions, reflecting progressive legal accommodation of changing domestic structures while preserving safeguards against arbitrary penalization.

In conclusion, by balancing progressive constitutional morality under Article 14 with procedural safeguards like proof of intent, the Supreme Court has demonstrated how judicial dynamism can protect fundamental rights without compromising statutory clarity.

Prelims practice questions

Q1. With reference to the Supreme Court's judgment on protecting live-in partners against domestic cruelty, consider the following statements: 1. The protection under Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS extends to all live-in relationships unconditionally. 2. The Supreme Court mandated that couples must share a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' along with an 'intent to marry'. 3. Denying criminal protection against cruelty to cohabiting partners was held to be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Which of the statements given above are correct?

1. 1 and 2 only
2. 2 and 3 only
3. 1 and 3 only
4. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: B. Statement 1 is incorrect because the protection is NOT unconditional; it explicitly requires the 'intent to marry'. Statements 2 and 3 are correct as per the Supreme Court ruling.

Q2. How did the Supreme Court differentiate between the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005 and Section 498A of the IPC / Section 85 of the BNS?

1. The DV Act applies exclusively to legally wedded wives, whereas Section 498A applies only to live-in partners.
2. The DV Act requires proof of intent to marry, whereas Section 498A requires a formal marriage certificate.
3. The DV Act provides criminal deterrence, while Section 498A provides civil remedies.
4. The DV Act is primarily civil legislation offering monetary remedies, whereas Section 498A is a criminal provision backed by deterrence.

Answer: D. The court pointed out that equating civil legislation (DV Act, providing maintenance/orders) with criminal provisions (Section 498A/BNS 85, providing criminal deterrence) is a misstatement of law.

Q3. Under the Supreme Court's ruling regarding domestic cruelty in live-in relationships, on whom does the initial burden of proof lie to establish the 'intent to marry'?

1. The female partner seeking protection under the law
2. The state prosecution agency
3. The male partner accused of cruelty
4. The investigating police officer

Answer: A. The Supreme Court judgment explicitly noted that the initial burden of proof to establish the 'intent to marry' lies on the female partner seeking the law's protection.

Revision flashcards

• What is the key legal extension made by the Supreme Court regarding Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS? The Supreme Court extended criminal protection against domestic cruelty to women in live-in relationships, provided there is an 'intent to marry'.
• Which Fundamental Right was cited by the Supreme Court to justify extending domestic cruelty provisions to live-in partners? Article 14 (Right to Equality), holding that denying protection to cohabiting partners facing cruelty lacks a rational nexus with preventing domestic violence.
• What is the key difference between the DV Act 2005 and Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS according to the Supreme Court? The DV Act 2005 is a civil statute providing remedies like maintenance, whereas Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS provides criminal penal deterrence.
• What additional requirement must a live-in relationship meet beyond being 'in the nature of marriage' for criminal cruelty protection to apply? The couple must share an explicit 'intent to marry'.
• Who bears the initial burden of proof to establish 'intent to marry' in live-in cruelty cases? The female partner seeking protection under the law bears the initial burden of proof.