"Supreme Court extends domestic cruelty law to live-in relationships"
Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS
criminal provision penalising cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman, with up to three years' imprisonment
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
civil-remedial statute extending protection orders, residence rights, and maintenance to women in 'domestic relationships', including live-in arrangements
India's legal framework addressing violence against women in intimate relationships has evolved through a combination of criminal statute, civil remedy, and judicial interpretation. The foundational criminal provision is Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalised cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman — a provision introduced in 1983 in response to the alarming incidence of dowry-related violence and matrimonial cruelty. Its successor, Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, carries forward the same offence under the new consolidated criminal code that replaced the IPC.
On the civil side, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 marked a paradigm shift by extending protection beyond formally married women. The Act defined 'domestic relationship' broadly to include women living in a 'relationship in the nature of marriage', thereby acknowledging that cohabitation without formal solemnisation could still attract civil remedies — protection orders, residence orders, and maintenance. However, a critical gap persisted: while civil remedies were available to women in live-in relationships, the criminal law of cruelty under Section 498A was textually anchored to the institution of marriage, leaving open the question of whether it could extend to non-marital cohabitation.
The Supreme Court had previously attempted to define the contours of live-in relationships through decisions in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) and Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013), laying down factors such as the duration of cohabitation, the degree of permanence and commitment, and the public representation of the relationship, to determine whether a live-in arrangement qualifies as being 'in the nature of marriage'.
The legal architecture governing domestic violence in India operates on two parallel tracks — criminal and civil — which have historically diverged in their scope of coverage. Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) is a cognisable, non-bailable offence that enables arrest and criminal prosecution of a husband or his relatives for subjecting a woman to cruelty, whether physical, mental, or through unlawful demands for property. The provision was designed to address the specific vulnerability of married women within the matrimonial home, and its language — 'husband or the relative of the husband' — was traditionally read as presupposing a legally valid marriage.
The PWDVA, 2005 operates differently: it is a civil-remedial statute that empowers a Magistrate to issue protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, and custody orders. Crucially, its definition of 'aggrieved person' includes any woman in a 'domestic relationship', which the Act defines to cover not just marriage but also relationships 'in the nature of marriage'. This broader definition was a deliberate legislative choice to protect women in cohabiting relationships from abuse, even absent formal matrimonial ties. …
Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one's right to marry the person of one's choice?
Under which Article of the Constitution of India is the 'Right to Privacy' protected?
With reference to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005, consider the following statements:
1.The Act extends civil remedies only to women who are legally married.
2.The Act defines 'domestic relationship' to include relationships 'in the nature of marriage'.
3.Under the Act, a Magistrate can issue both protection orders and residence orders.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following statements regarding Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and its successor provision:
1.Section 498A IPC has been replaced by Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2.The offence under Section 498A is cognisable and bailable.
3.The Supreme Court has recently held that this provision can apply to live-in relationships 'in the nature of marriage'.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Assertion (A): The Supreme Court has held that the absence of formal solemnisation of marriage cannot, by itself, deny a woman in a live-in relationship the protection of criminal law against cruelty.
Reason (R): The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 already extends civil remedies to women in relationships 'in the nature of marriage'.
Which of the following is correct?
Which of the following factors were laid down by the Supreme Court in
D.Velusamy v.
D.Patchaiammal (2010) to determine whether a live-in relationship qualifies as being 'in the nature of marriage'?
1.The couple must have lived together for a considerable period.
2.The relationship must possess requisite permanence and commitment.
3.The couple must have registered their relationship with a state authority.
4.The relationship must be publicly represented as marriage-like.
Select the correct answer using the code below:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account