Domestic Cruelty Law Now Covers Live-In Partners: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 3, 2026) ruled that the criminal offence of domestic cruelty will apply to live-in relationships between consenting adults that qualify as 'relationships in the nature of marriage'. The judgment, delivered by a Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Karol, expands the protective scope of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which has now been replaced by Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The Court observed that live-in relationships are a reality in modern, urban life, and the law must adapt to contemporary social circumstances. 'If a woman is in a domestic setup even prior to marriage, which obviously, to a certain extent in the urban areas, is a reality today, the protection given to a married woman should be given to them also. Cruelty, anyway, does not check at the door, whether the house it enters is that of a married woman or not,' Justice Karol remarked.
The Bench reasoned that relationships in the nature of marriage, which show the requisite intent to marry, are the 'closest to marriage itself'. 'It is those relationships that shall be entitled to the protection of Section 498A,' the Court stated. The judgment clarified that the marital status of a woman does not have a proximate link to the objective of Section 498A, which is to prevent cruelty in a household setting.
Drawing a parallel with changing societal norms, the Court noted that living together before marriage is no longer unheard of or unacceptable. It also referenced the decriminalisation of same-sex relations, stating that once-criminalised and pathologised identities have now been recognised as naturally occurring.
The ruling came in response to a legal question whether a man in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court's answer is in the affirmative for relationships that meet the criteria of being 'in the nature of marriage'. This means that women in such live-in relationships can seek legal recourse against domestic cruelty, including harassment for dowry or other forms of abuse.
Legal experts note that this judgment aligns with earlier decisions that recognised live-in relationships for various legal purposes, such as maintenance and inheritance. However, the Court was careful to distinguish between casual live-in arrangements and those that resemble marriage, with the latter alone attracting the protection of this provision.
The decision is seen as a significant step in addressing the vulnerabilities of women in non-marital domestic partnerships, reflecting the judiciary's effort to ensure that the law remains relevant to changing social realities. It also underscores the need for clearer legislative guidance on the rights and obligations of partners in live-in relationships.
