{"id":80821,"date":"2026-08-05T18:22:46","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T12:52:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/?p=80821"},"modified":"2026-08-05T18:24:29","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T12:54:29","slug":"sc-live-in-relationship-domestic-cruelty-protection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/current-affairs\/05-08-2026\/sc-live-in-relationship-domestic-cruelty-protection","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Extends Protection Against Domestic Cruelty to Women in Live-in Relationships"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Syllabus: GS2\/Polity and Governance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court held that the offence of domestic cruelty under <strong>Section 498A of the IPC (now Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)<\/strong> extends to women in live-in relationships that are <strong>&#8220;in the nature of marriage.&#8221;<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Background<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Section 498A<\/strong> of the IPC penalises a husband or his relatives for subjecting a woman to cruelty.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Because the provision explicitly uses the word \u201chusband\u201d, its application was traditionally restricted to legally valid marriages.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Over the years, the Supreme Court expanded this definition to cover such men who induced a woman into a marriage that is <strong>legally void or voidable<\/strong>.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>For example:<\/strong> Hiding a previous subsisting marriage &amp; holding that such men cannot claim that they were not a \u201chusband\u201d to escape prosecution for cruelty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Arguments Favouring Expansion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Progressive Judicial Interpretation:<\/strong> It reflects the judiciary\u2019s commitment to purposively interpret legislation to respond to developing social circumstances and to protect vulnerable individuals.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Victim-Centric Approach:<\/strong> Changes the focus from the legal status of marriage to the presence of cruelty in a domestic relationship.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Advancing Substantive Equality: <\/strong>Provides equal protection under the law for women in similar home relationships, irrespective of marital status.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Constitutional Provisions: <\/strong>The judgment is consistent with <strong>Articles 14, 15(3), and 21<\/strong> of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, permit special provisions for women and children, and protect the rights to life, dignity, privacy, and personal liberty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Arguments Against Expansion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Judicial Overreach: <\/strong>It is argued that expanding the scope of criminal law beyond the statutory wording falls within the legislative domain of Parliament rather than the judiciary.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Absence of Statutory Definition: <\/strong>The law does not define a &#8220;relationship in the nature of marriage,&#8221; creating legal uncertainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Supreme Court Judgements<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010):<\/strong> The Supreme Court laid down criteria for determining whether a live-in relationship can be regarded as being &#8220;in the nature of marriage.&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>I<strong>ndra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): <\/strong>The Court elaborated on various factors that distinguish a marriage-like relationship from casual cohabitation and recognised that deserving women should receive legal protection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2018): <\/strong>The Supreme Court held that women in live-in relationships are entitled to seek relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):<\/strong> The Court recognised the constitutional values of dignity, autonomy, privacy, and individual choice, reinforcing that legal interpretation must evolve with changing social norms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Way Ahead<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Parliament should consider providing a <strong>clear statutory framework <\/strong>that defines relationships &#8220;in the nature of marriage.&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Uniform judicial guidelines should be developed to <strong>ensure consistency in determining qualifying relationships.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Legal awareness should be strengthened<\/strong> so that women in live-in relationships understand the remedies available under criminal and civil laws.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Law enforcement agencies should receive appropriate training to effectively implement these protections while <strong>preventing misuse of the law.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Source: <\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/supreme-court-extends-domestic-cruelty-offence-to-live-in-relationships\/article71302401.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>TH<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong> Context <\/strong><\/p>\n<li class=\"ms-5\"> The Supreme Court held that the offence of domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC (now Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) extends to women in live-in relationships that are &#8220;in the nature of marriage.&#8221;. <\/li>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><strong> Background <\/strong><\/p>\n<li class=\"ms-5\"> Section 498A of the IPC penalises a husband or his relatives for subjecting a woman to cruelty. <\/li>\n<li class=\"ms-5\"> Because the provision explicitly uses the word \u201chusband\u201d, its application was traditionally restricted to legally valid marriages. <\/li>\n<p><a href=\" https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/current-affairs\/05-08-2026\/sc-live-in-relationship-domestic-cruelty-protection \" class=\"btn btn-primary btn-sm float-end\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-affairs"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80821","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80821"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80821\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":80824,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80821\/revisions\/80824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}