The apex court observed that Section 498A was introduced to deter reprehensible conduct by husbands and their relatives towards women. Its larger purpose was to secure equality for women and move away from notions of male superiority inherited from an earlier era.
The law must respond to changes in society, the Court added. It reasoned that distinguishing between married women and women in relationships resembling marriage would have no rational connection with the object of preventing domestic cruelty and would, therefore, offend Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 adequately protects women in live-in relationships. It noted that although the Domestic Violence Act has a wider ambit and recognises relationships in the nature of marriage, it largely provides civil remedies. Section 498A, by contrast, imposes criminal liability and consequently requires a higher threshold.
The Bench confined its interpretation specifically to Section 498A and clarified that it would not automatically affect the interpretation of other penal provisions.
It also directed strict compliance with the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. No live-in partner or relative accused of cruelty in such a relationship should be arrested without a preliminary inquiry, the Court ordered.
