The Karnataka High Court recently held that the offence of “marital cruelty” under Section 498A IPC (now replaced by new provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita 2023) can apply even if the relationship is not a legally valid marriage, provided the relationship has “attributes of marriage” and the complainant woman was misled into believing that she was married.
- In other words: a “live-in relationship” (or a void/voidable marriage) that simulates conjugal life, behaves like a marriage, or was initiated under a misrepresentation can attract cruelty laws. The Court said the term “husband” in Section 498A is not confined strictly to legally valid marriages.
- The Court rejected submissions that criminal cruelty provisions cannot be invoked if the “marriage” is void/legal status is defective. It held that misusing or exploiting the comfort and trust that comes with a conjugal‐type relationship even without legal sanction should not be a shield for cruelty.
- This expands the protective ambit of cruelty laws beyond strictly formal marriages. It ensures that individuals particularly women who are exploited or abused in relationships resembling marriage are not left without remedy merely because the relationship lacks formal legality.
- It reflects a principle that substance over form what matters is the actual nature of relationship and conduct (cohabitation, shared household, representation as spouses), not simply technical validity of marriage.
- It brings “live-in relationships” and de facto conjugal partnerships under the protective umbrella of penal cruelty laws so long as essential ingredients of cruelty (harassment, cruelty, dowry demand, physical/mental abuse) are established.
- It discourages misuse of “friendship agreements” or other informal arrangements claiming to avoid legal marriage a person cannot evade liability merely because the relationship was not solemnized.
Key Earlier Judgments & Legal Precedents
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013)
- The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) was held to apply to “live-in or marriage-like relationships.” The Court observed that a live-in or relationship resembling marriage is not a crime or a sin, even if socially unacceptable.
- This judgment affirmed that women in long-term relationships resembling marriage have right to maintenance, residence, protection similarly as in formal marriages under DV Act.
Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2018)
- In this case, the Supreme Court of India recognised that a woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to claim maintenance under DV Act, even though she is not legally a “wife”.
- The judgement expanded the protective reach of DV Act to enable economic support and relief for women who are in non-formal relationships that effectively function like marriages.
- Broader Recognition of Live-in / De Facto Relationships under DV Act & Other Protections
- Several other decisions and legal analyses have acknowledged that “live-in relationships” or “relationships in the nature of marriage” can come within the definition of “domestic relationship” under DV Act entitling partners to protections, reliefs, and remedies in case of abuse, violence or exploitation.
- This legal acceptance is independent of whether a marriage was formally solemnized what matters is the nature of cohabitation, public perception as a couple, shared household, and marital-like responsibilities.