Karnataka High Court Expands the Scope of Cruelty Under Section 498A: Live-In Partners Can Be Prosecuted

The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant ruling with far-reaching implications on the interpretation of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In a judgment dated 18 November, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that even individuals in live-in relationships, void marriages, or voidable marriages may be prosecuted for cruelty—so long as the essential ingredients of the offence are established.

This decision strengthens legal protection for women in marital-like arrangements and prevents men from exploiting technicalities of marital validity to escape liability.


Background of the Case

A man approached the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 498A by a woman he claimed was not his legally wedded wife.

According to the complaint:

  • The petitioner already had a valid subsisting marriage.

  • He married the complainant in 2010 without disclosing his earlier marriage.

  • The relationship continued until 2016, during which the woman alleged:

    • Cruelty,

    • Demands for dowry,

    • Physical violence.

  • She also claimed that he hid the fact of his first marriage and induced her into the relationship by misrepresentation.

The petitioner argued that since the complainant was not his legally wedded wife, Section 498A could not apply.


Court’s Key Findings

Justice Suraj Govindaraj rejected the petitioner’s arguments and made the following critical observations:

1. Meaning of “Husband” under Section 498A

The Court held that the expression “husband” in Section 498A IPC cannot be restricted only to men in legally valid marriages. It includes:

  • Persons in void marriages,

  • Persons in voidable marriages,

  • Persons in live-in relationships that have the attributes of marriage.

This interpretation flows from the social purpose of the provision, which is to prevent cruelty to women.

2. Protection Against Cruelty Cannot Depend on Technical Validity of Marriage

The Court noted that denying protection to a woman merely because the marriage was void would defeat the objective of the law and allow manipulation of legal technicalities.

3. Live-In Relationships With Characteristics of Marriage Are Covered

If a couple cohabits as husband and wife and the woman faces cruelty, she should not be left without remedy simply due to the absence of a valid marriage certificate.

4. Fraud and Inducement Cannot Shield a Man From Liability

A man who hides his previous marriage and induces a woman into a relationship cannot avoid criminal responsibility by claiming the relationship was not legally valid.


Statutory Provisions Involved

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (Now Replaced by BNS Sections 85 and 86)

  • Penalises cruelty inflicted by a husband or his relatives.

  • Cruelty includes:

    • Wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide,

    • Harassment for dowry.

The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 498A is social protection, not technical marital validation.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Sections 85 and 86)

  • Replace Section 498A IPC.

  • Retain the essence of cruelty offences.

  • Continue to protect women from mental and physical harassment.


Constitutional Provisions Relevant to the Issue

Article 14 – Equality Before Law

The Court’s interpretation aligns with Article 14 by ensuring equal protection to women in marital-like relationships.

Article 15(3) – Protective Legislation for Women

Section 498A has been recognized as a beneficial legislation aimed at preventing exploitation of women, consistent with Article 15(3).

Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity

Cruelty in intimate relationships violates a woman’s right to dignity, bodily autonomy, and emotional well-being.


Important Judicial Precedents Considered or Relevant

1. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)

The Supreme Court clarified the concept of “relationship in the nature of marriage”, stating that live-in relationships with certain characteristics may be treated similarly to marriages under specific laws.

2. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013)

Reaffirmed that police must register FIRs in cognizable offences such as cruelty, ensuring procedural protection for women.

3. Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011)

The Supreme Court held that women in marriage-like relationships deserve protection under maintenance laws.
This precedent supports the Karnataka HC’s purposive interpretation.

4. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)

The Supreme Court recognized various categories of live-in relationships and recommended a case-by-case assessment to determine protection under domestic laws.

5. Supreme Court’s Liberal Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation

Multiple judgments emphasize that statutes protecting women must be interpreted liberally to prevent injustice.


Why This Judgment Matters

Expands Legal Safety Net

Women in live-in relationships—a growing societal reality—are now assured protection against cruelty, regardless of marital technicalities.

Prevents Misuse of Marital Voidness

Men can no longer escape liability by hiding first marriages or claiming the second marriage was invalid.

Upholds the Social Object of Section 498A

The ruling preserves the protective nature of the legislation.

Aligns Indian Jurisprudence with Modern Relationship Norms

The judgment acknowledges contemporary living arrangements and ensures legal safeguards extend accordingly.


Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s ruling marks a significant step toward safeguarding women from cruelty in all forms of intimate partnerships. By expanding the interpretation of “husband” under Section 498A IPC, the Court has reinforced a rights-centric and socially conscious approach to criminal jurisprudence.

In a society where live-in relationships and marital deception are increasingly common, this judgment ensures that legal protection does not hinge on the technical validity of marriage but on the substance of the relationship and the reality of cruelty inflicted.

This landmark ruling strengthens women's legal rights and prevents exploitation, fraud, and abuse—affirming that dignity and safety must prevail over technicalities.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Exploring Articles 236 to 238 of the Indian Constitution: A Contemporary Discourse