Introduction
Indian society has witnessed significant changes in the way personal relationships are understood. Marriage continues to enjoy strong legal and social recognition, but live-in relationships have also become increasingly visible, particularly in urban India.
This development has raised an important legal question: When a relationship does not have the formal status of marriage, can a woman still seek legal protection against cruelty, abuse, or domestic violence?
The answer is not simply yes or no.
Indian law distinguishes between an ordinary live-in relationship and a relationship that possesses the characteristics of a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” While the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 expressly recognises such relationships for domestic-violence protection, the question of applying the criminal offence traditionally associated with Section 498A IPC to live-in relationships remains legally significant.
The Supreme Court has recently been seized of this precise issue in the context of the corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
1. What Is a Live-in Relationship?
A live-in relationship generally refers to a domestic arrangement in which two adults voluntarily live together as partners without formally entering into a marriage.
The law, however, does not automatically treat every such arrangement as equivalent to marriage.
Courts have repeatedly examined factors such as:
• the duration of the relationship;
• whether the couple lived together as a household;
• the nature of their social and financial relationship;
• whether they presented themselves as a couple;
• whether there was stability and continuity in the relationship; and
• whether the relationship otherwise resembles a marital relationship.
Therefore, mere cohabitation is not, by itself, sufficient to establish every legal consequence associated with marriage.
2. Protection Under the Domestic Violence Act
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 adopts a broader approach than traditional matrimonial law.
Section 2(f) defines a “domestic relationship” to include, among other relationships, persons who live or have lived together in a shared household when they are related through marriage, blood, adoption, or are in a relationship in the nature of marriage.
This is particularly important because the Act does not restrict protection only to legally married women.
The Supreme Court has recognised that the Domestic Violence Act deliberately extends beyond the conventional marital relationship and can cover live-in relationships that are in the nature of marriage.
Consequently, an eligible woman may seek remedies under the Act for conduct such as:
• physical abuse;
• sexual abuse;
• verbal or emotional abuse;
• economic abuse;
• threats and intimidation; and
• other forms of domestic violence recognised under the statute.
Depending upon the facts, the court may grant remedies including protection orders, residencerelated relief, monetary relief, compensation and other statutory remedies.
3. Does Section 498A Automatically Apply to a Live-in Relationship?
This is where the legal position becomes more nuanced.
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was a specific criminal provision dealing with cruelty by a husband or the relatives of a husband towards a woman.
Following the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the corresponding provision is found in Section 85, read with Section 86, which deals with cruelty.
Therefore, references to “Section 498A” in discussions today should be understood in their historical context, with the corresponding BNS provisions being relevant to offences committed under the new criminal-law regime.
The crucial question is whether these provisions can be invoked where the parties were not legally married but were living together in a relationship resembling marriage.
The Supreme Court is currently examining this precise legal question—whether a man in a live-in relationship or a relationship in the nature of marriage with a woman can be prosecuted under the corresponding provision of the BNS. The Court has also considered the issue important enough to implead the Union of India in the proceedings.
Therefore, it would be legally incorrect to state categorically that every live-in relationship automatically attracts Section 85 BNS in the same manner as a marriage.
The applicability depends upon the statutory language, facts of the relationship and the judicial interpretation ultimately governing the issue.
4. “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” Is Important
The expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” is central to understanding the protection available under the Domestic Violence Act.
The Supreme Court has previously explained that Parliament deliberately used this expression rather than simply including every form of live-in relationship.
In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, the Supreme Court emphasised that a relationship must possess characteristics comparable to a marital relationship before it can fall within the statutory expression.
This distinction prevents every casual or temporary relationship from automatically acquiring the legal consequences associated with marriage.
At the same time, the law recognises that a woman who has genuinely lived in a stable domestic relationship should not necessarily be left without protection merely because the parties did not undergo a formal marriage ceremony.
5. Domestic Violence Protection Is Different from Matrimonial Status
An important legal principle is that protection from domestic violence does not necessarily mean that the parties are legally married.
A woman may receive statutory protection against domestic violence without being declared the wife of the respondent.
This distinction is crucial.
The purpose of the Domestic Violence Act is primarily protective and remedial. Its objective is to provide legal remedies against domestic abuse and safeguard the dignity, residence and financial security of an aggrieved woman.
The Supreme Court has described the Domestic Violence Act as legislation intended to protect women who experience domestic violence within qualifying domestic relationships.
Thus, recognition of a relationship for the purpose of domestic-violence protection should not automatically be interpreted as creating all the legal rights and obligations of a valid marriage.
6. What About Maintenance and Financial Relief?
The legal framework can also provide financial remedies in appropriate circumstances.
The Supreme Court has recognised that women in relationships falling within the scope of the Domestic Violence Act may be entitled to monetary relief and other remedies available under that legislation.
The precise relief, however, depends upon the facts of each case, including:
• the nature of the relationship;
• the financial circumstances of the parties;
• the existence of domestic violence;
• the woman’s economic position; and
• the evidence placed before the court.
Accordingly, maintenance or monetary relief should not be treated as an automatic consequence of every live-in relationship.
7. Evidence Can Become Extremely Important
Unlike a formally registered marriage, a live-in relationship may not always have a single document establishing its existence.
Consequently, evidence can assume considerable importance.
Depending upon the circumstances, relevant evidence may include:
• joint residential records;
• rental or lease documents;
• correspondence between the parties;
• photographs;
• financial records;
• joint accounts or expenses;
• evidence of shared household responsibilities;
• communications acknowledging the relationship; and
• testimony of persons familiar with the parties’ domestic arrangement.
The existence and nature of a relationship are ultimately questions of fact and must be established in accordance with law.
8. Protection of Women Must Be Balanced With Due Process
Legal protection against domestic violence is essential. At the same time, criminal liability cannot be imposed merely because two individuals were in a relationship.
Courts must carefully examine:
1. whether a legally recognised domestic relationship existed;
2. whether the relationship falls within the statutory requirements;
3. whether the alleged acts constitute the offence or domestic violence complained of;
4. whether the necessary ingredients of the relevant provision are satisfied; and
5. whether the allegations are supported by legally admissible evidence.
This approach protects genuine victims while preserving the fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
9. The Emerging Legal Position Under the BNS
The transition from the IPC to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has added a new dimension to this debate.
The question is no longer merely whether Section 498A IPC could historically be invoked in a particular factual situation. Courts must now examine the corresponding provisions of the BNS and their interpretation.
The Supreme Court’s pending consideration of whether a person in a live-in relationship or a relationship in the nature of marriage can be prosecuted under the relevant BNS provision demonstrates that the issue remains legally significant.
Until the issue is authoritatively settled, it is important for legal commentary to distinguish between:
Protection under the Domestic Violence Act
and
Criminal prosecution for cruelty under the BNS.
These are related but legally distinct questions.
10. What Does This Mean for Couples?
For individuals living in a live-in relationship, the legal position should not be viewed as either complete immunity or automatic matrimonial liability.
A live-in relationship may carry legal consequences depending upon its nature, duration, circumstances and the conduct of the parties.
For women facing domestic abuse, the Domestic Violence Act can provide an important statutory framework for seeking protection and other appropriate remedies where the relationship satisfies the legal requirements.
For respondents, allegations must also be examined carefully against the ingredients of the relevant statute. A criminal allegation does not eliminate the requirement of proof and procedural fairness.
Conclusion
The recognition of live-in relationships within India’s legal framework reflects an important shift in understanding domestic relationships and individual autonomy.
However, legal recognition does not mean that every live-in relationship is treated identically to marriage.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 expressly extends protection to qualifying relationships in the nature of marriage. At the same time, the question of whether the criminal law relating to cruelty under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 extends to such relationships is an evolving issue that is presently before the Supreme Court.
The broader principle remains clear: the absence of a marriage certificate does not necessarily leave a woman without legal protection, but the existence of a live-in relationship does not automatically create every legal consequence of marriage either.
The courts must therefore examine the nature of the relationship, the statutory requirements, the allegations and the evidence before determining what legal protection or criminal liability may arise.