IPC section on husband cruelty applies to live-in relationships: SC
What's the story
The Supreme Court on Monday held that men in live-in relationships can be prosecuted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty if the relationship is in the nature of marriage and the parties intended to marry. "Section 498A is held to be applicable to live-in relationships that qualify as relationships in the nature of marriage, with the intent to marry being established as....intrinsic part thereof," a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said.
Legal clarification
Burden of proof to show intention to marry on woman
The court, however, clarified that not all live-in relationships would attract this provision.
It said the burden of proof to show an intention to marry would be on the woman seeking protection under Section 498A.
The ruling came in an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment which had refused to quash criminal proceedings against Dr Lokesh BH and others.
Case background
Woman alleged attempted murder by fire
The case arose after a woman alleged that Lokesh married her while his first marriage was still valid.
She accused him and his relatives of dowry harassment, cruelty, and attempting to set her on fire.
Lokesh, however, argued that the second marriage was void and he couldn't be treated as her "husband" under Section 498A.
Court's decision
Supreme Court upheld broader interpretation
The high court had rejected Lokesh's argument, saying Section 498A can apply to void or voidable marriages and live-in relationships resembling marriage.
The Supreme Court upheld this broader interpretation but required proof of an intention to marry.
The court noted that Section 498A was enacted to deter husbands and their relatives from committing heinous acts against women, aiming for gender equality and breaking away from patriarchal norms.
Legal evolution
Law must evolve with society, said court
The court emphasized that the law must evolve with society.
It said differentiating between married and unmarried women in relationships resembling marriage has no rational connection with preventing domestic cruelty and would therefore violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
The court also rejected arguments that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, sufficiently protects women in live-in relationships.