"Supreme Court extends domestic cruelty protection to live-in partners with marriage intent"
Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS
Criminal provision penalising a husband/partner for subjecting a woman to cruelty.
Purposive interpretation
Reading a statute in light of its intended purpose, not just its literal text.
The protection of women from domestic cruelty in India rests on two distinct legal pillars. The first is Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — now replaced by Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — a criminal provision that penalises a husband or his relatives for subjecting a wife to cruelty, carrying imprisonment of up to three years. The second is the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005, a primarily civil statute that provides remedies such as protection orders, residence orders, and maintenance to women in a broader range of domestic relationships, expressly including those "in the nature of marriage."
Historically, Section 498A was drafted with the institution of marriage as its explicit frame of reference — the word "husband" was used throughout, confining its application to legally valid marriages. Over time, the Supreme Court chipped away at this rigidity by extending the provision to men who induced women into void or voidable marriages — for instance, by concealing a prior subsisting marriage — holding that such men could not invoke the absence of a valid marriage as a shield against prosecution for cruelty. This incremental judicial expansion set the stage for the broader question the court has now addressed.
The constitutional foundation for this expansion lies in Article 14 (right to equality before law and equal protection of laws) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to live with dignity). Any statutory distinction that lacks a rational nexus to the law's own objective is vulnerable to challenge under Article 14 — and it is precisely this reasoning that the court deployed in the present judgment.
The judgment turns on the concept of a "relationship in the nature of marriage" — a phrase borrowed from the DV Act, 2005 — and its application to the criminal provision in Section 498A/BNS Section 85. The court drew a careful three-tier distinction: (1) a general live-in relationship, which may be purely cohabitational with no matrimonial intent; (2) a "relationship in the nature of marriage," which requires pooling of financial resources, shared domestic arrangements, a sexual relationship, and social presentation as a couple akin to spouses; and (3) a relationship that meets all of the above and carries an "intent to marry" — which the court held is the threshold for invoking the criminal protection of Section 498A.
The court adopted a "purposive interpretation" of the law — a well-established canon of statutory construction that asks what the legislature intended to achieve, rather than reading the text in isolation. …
Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement ?
Under which Article of the Constitution of India is the 'Right to Privacy' protected?
With reference to the Supreme Court's ruling on domestic cruelty protection for live-in partners, consider the following statements:
1.The court held that a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' alone is sufficient to invoke Section 85 of the BNS.
2.The court distinguished the DV Act, 2005 from Section 498A IPC on the basis that one is civil and the other is criminal in character.
3.The constitutional basis for extending Section 498A protection was Article 14 of the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Supreme Court's extension of Section 498A IPC protection to live-in partners is based on 'purposive interpretation'. What does this canon of statutory construction primarily involve?
Consider the following assertion and reason:
Assertion (A): The Supreme Court held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not provide adequate protection equivalent to Section 498A IPC for women in live-in relationships.
Reason (R): The DV Act, 2005 is primarily a civil statute providing remedies such as protection orders and maintenance, whereas Section 498A IPC is backed by criminal deterrence including imprisonment.
Which of the following is correct?
With reference to the legal concept of a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which of the following features have been identified as constituting such a relationship?
1.Pooling of financial resources between the partners
2.Holding themselves out to society as being akin to spouses
3.A formal religious ceremony of marriage
4.A sexual relationship between the partners
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account