"We find no reason why equal treatment should not be accorded to a wife as well as a woman who has been living with a man as his common-law wife or even as a mistress," a Bench comprising Justices Vikramjit Sen and P K Bhasin said.

The Bench passed the judgement on a petition filed by a man for quashing criminal proceedings against him on the complaint filed by his live-in partner.

Rejecting the plea of the petitioner, the court said that in a case of women having live-in relationships with a man it could be fairly assumed that the relationship was initiated by the man.

"Like treatment to both (wives and mistress) does not, in any manner, derogate from the sanctity of marriage since an assumption can fairly be drawn that a live-in relationship is invariably initiated and perpetuated by the male," the Bench said.

The Bench said that in dealing with such cases "the court should also not be impervious to social stigma which always sticks to women and not to the men".

The petitioner contended in the High Court that granting equal rights to a live-in relationship partner would diminish the rights of legally-wedded women.

The Court, however, rejected his contentions and said, "It is not unconstitutional for the parliament to provide for protection to a woman in a relationship akin to marriage, along with and juxtaposed to the protection given to wives and legitimate children."

The Bench also held that diversion of funds, meant for legally married wife, towards the live-in relationship partner for her protection was not unconstitutional and invalid.

"In unfortunate and uncomfortable situations like these, if the protection given to unwedded women results in the diminution of funds available for maintenance of the legally wedded wives and the legitimate children, such diminution would not render the statute unconstitutional," the Bench said.

Shah, the petitioner, had approached the High Court after proceedings were initiated against him by a lower court in New Delhi under the Domestic Violence Act on the complainant filed by a woman who claimed to be his wife.

He, however, defended himself saying that he was not legally married to the complainant and challenged the constitutional validity of the Act as it was discriminatory against the male community.

The Court rejected his contention questioning the validity of the Act and said, "There is perception, not unfounded or unjustified, that the lot and fate of women in India is an abjectly dismal one...the argument that the Act is ultra vires the constitution because it accords protection only to women and not to men is, therefore, wholly devoid of any merit."