Supreme Court Extends S.498A IPC To Live-In Relationships Which Are 'Relationships In The Nature Of Marriage'

CONCLUSION

23. (i) Section 498A is held to be applicable to “live-in

relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of

marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an

intrinsic part thereof;

(ii) The “live-in relationships” protected by Section 498A, it

is stated for ample clarity, are those that are between two

consenting adult individuals;

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No (s). OF 2026

DR. LOKESH B.H. & ORS. Vs  STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 784

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether woman in live in relationship is entitled to get maintenance under S 125 of CRPC?

41. Most significantly, the Act gives a very wide interpretation to the term 'domestic relationship' as to take it outside the confines of a marital relationship, and even includes live-in relationships in the nature of marriage within the definition of 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the Act.

42. Therefore, women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all the reliefs given in the said Act.

43. We are thus of the opinion that if the abovementioned monetary relief and compensation can be awarded in cases of live-in relationships under the Act of 2005, they should also be allowed in a proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It seems to us that the same view is confirmed by Section 26 of the said Act of 2005.

44. We believe that in light of the constant change in social attitudes and values, which have been incorporated into the forward-looking Act of 2005, the same needs to be considered with respect to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, a broad interpretation of the same should be taken.

45. We, therefore, request the Hon'ble Chief Justice to refer the following, amongst other, questions to be decided by a larger Bench. According to us, the questions are:

1. Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?

2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

3. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

46. We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term 'wife' to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On: 07.10.2010

Civil Appeal No. ... of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15071 of 2009)

Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.

Author: A.K. Ganguly, J.

Citation:  MANU / SC / 0807 / 2010

( 2011 ) 1 SCC 141

[ 2010 ] 12 SCR 223

( 2011 ) 2 SCC(Cri) 666

Print Page

What is Alienation of affection under matrimonial law and whether it is a tort?

ALIENATION OF AFFECTION

64. Appellant had entered into this relationship knowing well that the Respondent was a married person and encouraged bigamous relationship. By entering into such a relationship, the Appellant has committed an intentional tort, i.e. interference in the marital relationship with intentionally alienating Respondent from his family, i.e. his wife and children. If the case set up by the Appellant is accepted, we have to conclude that there has been an attempt on the part of the Appellant to alienate Respondent from his family, resulting in loss of marital relationship, companionship, assistance, loss of consortium etc., so far as the legally wedded wife and children of the Respondent are concerned, who resisted the relationship from the very inception. Marriage and family are social institutions of vital importance. Alienation of affection, in that context, is an intentional tort, as held by this Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal case (supra), which gives a cause of action to the wife and children of the Respondent to sue the Appellant for alienating the husband/father from the company of his wife/children, knowing fully well they are legally wedded wife/children of the Respondent..

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2009 of 2013 

Decided On: 26.11.2013

Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.

Author: K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1230/2013,AIR2014SC309,(2013)15SCC755,[2013]14SCR1019.

Read full Judgment here :Click here

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines to ascertain when a live-in relationship will fall within "relationship in the nature of marriage" as per provisions of Domestic violence Act

We may, on the basis of above discussion cull out some guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" Under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, of course, are not exhaustive, but will definitely give some insight to such relationships.

(1) Duration of period of relationship

Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression "at any point of time", which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.

(2) Shared household

The expression has been defined Under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further elaboration.

(3) Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements

Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.

(4) Domestic Arrangements

Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up keeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

(5) Sexual Relationship

Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc.

(6) Children

Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.

(7) Socialization in Public

Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage.

(8) Intention and conduct of the parties

Common intention of parties as to what their relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, primarily determines the nature of that relationship.{Para 55}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2009 of 2013 

Decided On: 26.11.2013

Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.

Author: K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1230/2013,AIR2014SC309,(2013)15SCC755,[2013]14SCR1019.

Print Page

Whether is distinction between a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' provided under Domestic violence Act and live- in relationship?

 Some countries in the world recognize common law marriages. A common law marriage, sometimes called de facto marriage, or informal marriage is recognized in some countries as a marriage though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry (see details on Google). {Para 32}

33. In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married:

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

(b) They must be of legal age to marry.

(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

(see 'Common Law Marriage' in Wikipedia on Google)

In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a 'domestic relationship'.

34. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage'

35. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'live in relationship'. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2028-2029 of 2010 

Decided On: 21.10.2010

D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ.

Author:Markandey Katju, J.

Citation:MANU/SC/0872/2010,AIR2011SC479,(2010)10SCC469,(2011)1SCC(Cri)59.

Print Page

Whether a registered gift deed executed in favour of live in partner is void as it is for immoral consideration?

In our view, the whole approach of the trial Court and

First Appellate Court in this third round is completely

fallacious. If one may say the reasoning is based only on a

social belief that the man staying with a woman, who is not his

wife and giving his property to her is something immoral and

improper and she should not be the beneficiary of gift deed

even if the donor stands by the gift deed.

If one may say, even the belief of the original

plaintiffs and now the appellants before us is predicated on

this prejudice that they have an inherent right to get the

benefit of the properties as being the brothers of the

deceased and the lady who stayed with him, wife or not, is not

entitled for the same. It is in these circumstances that one

of the issues framed originally was also whether Pritam Kaur

enjoyed the status of a wife or not. In our view, if the donor

is making a gift out of his own free will and volition and is

the exclusive owner of the properties, it is nobody’s concern

as to whom he gives the properties to.

What is most material is that all the Courts have found

(i.e. three concurrent findings) that they are not ancestral

properties. This plea was really raised as an alternative in

the second round having failed to establish the reversionary

rights in the first round. That should have been the end of

the matter. The gift deed is a registered gift deed. The

common written statement filed by Gian Singh and Pritam Kaur

affirmed to the execution of the gift deed. The fact that they

did not step into the witness box is an incidence of Gian

Singh passing away and much later Pritam Kaur also having

passed away. That does not take the validity of the gift deed.

We are really not concerned with the moralistic issue whether

Pritam Kaur was actually married to Gian Singh as the second

wife or was she just living with him. There was undoubtedly

companionship and Gian Singh in his wisdom deemed it

appropriate to handover the properties through registered gift

deed to Pritam Kaur. In the written statement he did say that

she is his wife of 35 years’ standing.

We would in the end say that it is time that the Courts

get out of this mindset, or possibly may have got out of this

mindset by now on passing value judgments on relationships

between parties in determining either a testamentary or nontestamentary disposition so long as the document executed is

found to be validly executed. Some kind of a male chauvinistic

approach appears to have coloured judgments passed by the

trial Court and the First Appellate Court which is of course a

reflection of the mindset of the appellants before us.

We, thus, dismiss the appeal with costs and bring this

half decade of litigation to an end.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.1731/2009

MOHINDER SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Vs MAL SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

Dated: 09th MARCH, 2022

Print Page

Whether Child Born In Live-in Relationship is To Be treated As Child Born To Married Couple for the adoption of a child under Juvenile Justice Act?

 Now, we turn to the facts of the case. The

child was born in a Government Hospital, Aluva.

Father’s name is disclosed to the hospital authority

and also to the local authority. Name of the child was

also given in the birth certificate. Birth certificate

shows the name of the father, mother and child.

Surname of the child reflects the name of the father.

Birth certificate is a crucial document for public

authority to verify that the child is born to a married

couple or not. It is not the duty of the Committee to

inquire about the legal status of the marriage as they

are not the competent authority to decide on such

status. Once it is found that the child is born to a

couple, for all practical purposes of JJ Act, inquiry

must be initiated as though the child belonged to a

married couple. {Para 28 }

29. Under Regulation 7(5) of the Adoption

Regulations, if a child born to a married couple is

surrendered, both parents have to sign a deed of

surrender. If surrender is by one parent and the

whereabouts of the other parent are not known, the

child shall be treated as an abandoned child

[Regulation 7(6)]. In the matter of abandoned child,

Regulation 6 will have to be followed. In this case,

no such procedure was adopted. Admittedly, the

procedure applicable to an unwed mother alone was

followed. That is legally unsustainable as the child

has to be treated as born to a married couple. The

declaration and issuance of certificate under Section

38 of JJ Act that the child is legally free for

adoption is possible only after conducting due enquiry

as contemplated under the Adoption Regulations. Due

enquiry procedure postulates an institutional decision

of the Committee treating the child as abandoned or

surrendered. The enquiry in this case must have been

an enquiry as contemplated for an abandoned child as

only one parent alone had executed the surrender deed.

30. Once the declaration under Section 38 is found

invalid, all consequential proceedings would also fall.

We paused for a moment to issue notice to the adopted

parents. We refrained from issuing notice as they

shall not come into contact with the biological

parents. That would be against the law laid down by

the Apex Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union Of India

[AIR 1984 SC 469]. Further, we find no notice is

required to be sent to the adoptive parents as they

have no accrued or vested right prior to the

declaration under Section 38. If the entire

proceedings leading to Section 38 fall, consequently,

the adoption becomes illegal.

KERALA HIGH COURT

 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.

Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

Print Page

Whether the court should give police protection to a couple if the married person is living with a spouse of someone else?

Counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.1 is a

lady, who shown to be wife of petitioner No.2 – Umardeen Khan.

However, it is informed that petitioner No.1 – Vakeela was married

to respondent No.5 - Talim and petitioner No.2 - Umardeen Khan

is also a married person. Now, wife of respondent No.5 – Talim,

Vakeela wants to live with petitioner No.2 - Umardeen Khan, who

is already married under the Muslim Law. A married muslim

woman cannot get married again unless she has been divorced.

Petitioner No.2 - Umardeen Khan is also married and the

documents, which have been placed on record, do not show that a

valid Nikah has taken place between the couple and only a

Nikahnama has been executed on the stamp paper of Rs.500/-

without being before any Mutwali nor there is a Nutfah read by

any Maulvi. There is Maulvi (Priest) to the Nikahnama, who has

signed the said Nikahnama. In the contents of the Nikahnama, it

is mentioned that the petitioners were living in live in relationship.

In the opinion of this Court, the married persons living with

somebody else spouse would be amount into committing an

immoral act and a seal of approval cannot be given by this Court

by directing the police to give them protection.

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4271/2020

 Vakeela Vs  State Of Rajasthan, 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order: 06/11/2020

Print Page

Supreme court: All live-in- relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage

 We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage. All live-in- relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. Appellant’s and the respondent’s relationship is, therefore, not a “relationship in the nature of marriage” because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than “in the nature of marriage” and the appellant’s status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to “domestic violence” under Section 3 of the DV Act.

66. We have, on facts, found that the appellant’s status was that of a mistress, who is in distress, a survivor of a live-in relationship which is of serious concern, especially when such persons are poor and illiterate, in the event of which vulnerability is more pronounced, which is a societal reality. Children born out of such relationship also suffer most which calls for bringing in remedial measures by the Parliament, through proper legislation.

67. We are conscious of the fact that if any direction is given to the respondent to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to the appellant, that would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children of the respondent, especially when they had opposed that relationship and have a cause of action against the appellant for alienating the companionship and affection of the husband/parent which is an intentional tort.1

Supreme Court of India

Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1230/2013

Print Page

Supreme Court: Declaration about marital status can not be declared with out hearing affected person

There was allegation that husband was married to one lady by name Laxmi. No notice issued to said laxmi nor she was made party to proceedings. Any declaration about her marital status vis-a-vis husband is wholly null and void as it will be violative of rules of natural justice.

Supreme Court of India

D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal on 21 October, 2010

Author: M Katju

Bench: Markandey Katju, T.S. Thakur

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2028-2029__OF 2010

Print Page