Supreme Court safeguards for live-in partners are much-needed and long-overdue

The Supreme Court’s decision to extend theprotection against domestic cruelty to women in live-in relationshipsthat are “in the nature of marriage” is a welcome attempt to bring criminal law in step with evolving social realities. By holding that Section 498A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code — and its equivalent, Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — can apply where the relationship is founded on a genuine intent to marry, the SC has adopted an expansive reading of the law. It acknowledges that domestic abuse derives its force from unequal power and coercion, that it does not become less devastating because a relationship lacks formal solemnisation. While women in live-in relationships already have recourse to civil remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the judgment makes clear that the absence of a formally solemnised marriage cannot, by itself, deny them the protection of criminal law. In doing so, the Court reinforces the principle that legal protection must respond to the substance of intimate relationships rather than their form. Violence in intimate relationships remains one of India’s most pervasive yet under-reported crimes. The recent NFHS found that over 22 per cent of ever-married women have experienced physical, sexual or emotional violence at the hands of their partners. Yet, financial and social compulsions mean that only a small minority seeks redressal. Women in live-in relationships often face additional legal, procedural and social burdens. In the present case, for instance, the accused sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated by his partner, arguing that because he was already married, their relationship could not amount to a valid marriage and therefore could not attract the offence of cruelty. In cases such as D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) and Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013), the SC had laid out the factors, including whether the couple has lived together for a considerable period, and whether the relationship possesses the requisite permanence and commitment, to be considered in case of live-in relationships in the nature of marriage. By adding further guardrails — the judgment has mandated the safeguards in Arnesh Kumar vs Bihar to be followed in such cases — the Court has struck a careful and necessary balance.