Supreme Court brings live-in relationships under Section 498A IPC, refuses to quash cruelty case
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA NEW DELHI, August 3: In a significant judgment expanding legal protection for women, the Supreme Court has held that…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
NEW DELHI, August 3: In a significant judgment expanding legal protection for women, the Supreme Court has held that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives, will also apply to live-in relationships that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage.”
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ruled that such protection would extend only to consensual relationships between two adults where the intent to marry forms an intrinsic part of the relationship.
The court, however, clarified that the interpretation is confined to Section 498A IPC and will not automatically extend to other penal provisions.
The verdict came while dismissing appeals filed by Dr. Lokesh B.H., who had challenged the Karnataka High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 498A and other provisions.
Live-in relationships can attract Section 498A
The apex court addressed the key legal question of whether a man in a live-in relationship could be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC.
After examining the scope of the provision, previous judicial precedents and the object behind the law, the court held that a purposive interpretation was necessary to ensure that women in marriage-like relationships are not left without protection merely because the relationship does not satisfy the technical requirements of a valid marriage.
The Bench observed that the expression “husband” under Section 498A should include a man in a live-in relationship that bears the characteristics of marriage, provided the relationship demonstrates a genuine intention to marry.
Interpretation limited to Section 498A
While extending the scope of Section 498A, the Supreme Court made it clear that the ruling is restricted to that provision alone.
It clarified that the expanded interpretation would not affect the interpretation of any other provision of criminal or civil law, thereby limiting the precedential impact of the judgment to cruelty cases under Section 498A.
Court declines to quash criminal proceedings
Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Bench refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant.
The court held that, taking the allegations at face value, a prima facie offence was disclosed and therefore the proceedings could not be quashed at the threshold.
It further clarified that its observations on the facts were confined only to deciding the appeals against the refusal to quash the proceedings and should not be treated as findings on the merits of the criminal trial.
Safeguards against arbitrary arrests reiterated
Recognising concerns over misuse of Section 498A, the Supreme Court reiterated that the safeguards laid down in the landmark Arnesh Kumar judgment must be strictly followed.
The Bench directed that no person in a qualifying live-in relationship, or the relatives of such a person, should be arrested without preliminary inquiry and adherence to the safeguards prescribed in Arnesh Kumar.
Key takeaways from the judgment
The Supreme Court laid down four important principles:
- Section 498A IPC applies to live-in relationships that qualify as relationships in the nature of marriage.
- The relationship must be between two consenting adults, with an established intention to marry.
- The expanded interpretation is confined to Section 498A IPC and does not automatically apply to other statutory provisions.
- Police authorities must strictly comply with the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar before taking coercive action.
The judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for criminal law relating to domestic relationships by extending statutory protection against cruelty to women in qualifying live-in relationships while simultaneously reinforcing safeguards against arbitrary arrests.
