SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 784
BENCH: Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
AUTHOR: Sanjay Karol, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 3, 2026
HEADNOTE
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), Section 498A – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act 43 of 2005), Section 2(f) – Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, and 21 – Applicability of Section 498A to Live-in Relationships – "Relationship in the nature of marriage" – Purposive interpretation of penal/social welfare provisions – Intention to marry – Safeguards against misuse.
The appellant (a doctor) challenged the order of the High Court of Karnataka which refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 498A IPC (and other sections) by respondent No. 2. The appellant contended that they were never legally married, and since a valid marriage is a sine qua non for Section 498A, he could not be prosecuted under the provision as a "husband". The respondent contended that they cohabited in a relationship having all the trappings of a marriage, after the appellant induced her into believing they were married while concealing his prior subsisting marriage.
Held, dismissing the appeal and laying down guidelines:
¶ 1. Purposive Construction of "Husband" in Section 498A IPC:
While penal statutes are generally strictly construed, strict literalism must give way to a purposive and contextual construction when dealing with social welfare/reformative criminal legislations aimed at curbing domestic cruelty. The term "husband" under Section 498A IPC is not restricted strictly to a man in a legally valid marriage, but extends to a man who enters into a "relationship in the nature of marriage" (live-in relationship) with a consenting adult woman.
(Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199; Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477, approved; Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P., (2007) 15 SCC 369, distinguished).
¶ 2. Constitutional Mandate under Articles 14 and 21:
Denying statutory protection under criminal law against household cruelty to a woman solely because she chose a live-in arrangement rather than a traditional ceremonial marriage creates an unconstitutional distinction lacking rational nexus with the legislative object of preventing domestic cruelty. Right to choose a partner is an integral facet of personal liberty and individual autonomy under Article 21.
¶ 3. Interplay with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
Although the DV Act recognizes a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f), the protection under the DV Act is fundamentally civil in character (except for violations of protection orders under Section 31). Civil remedies under the DV Act do not displace or eliminate the need for criminal deterrence under Section 498A IPC.
¶ 4. Essential Requirement of "Intent to Marry" and Higher Burden of Proof:
Not all live-in relationships attract Section 498A. For Section 498A IPC to apply to a live-in relationship, two conditions must be satisfied: (a) the relationship must qualify as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" based on established indicators (shared household, pooling of resources, social holding out, etc.); and (b) there must be an established intent to marry between the consenting adult parties. The initial burden of proving such intent rests on the female live-in partner.
¶ 5. Mandatory Safeguards against Misuse:
Recognizing the potential for misuse, the court clarified that no arrest shall be made automatically upon a complaint under Section 498A by a live-in partner without preliminary enquiries. The mandatory directions and parameters governing arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, must be strictly enforced by police authorities and Magistrates.
No comments:
Post a Comment