NEW DELHI:<\/em> The Supreme Court of India<\/a><\/strong> has held that Section 498A IPC<\/a><\/strong> may apply to a man in a live-in relationship<\/strong>, even without a legally valid marriage, when the relationship was in the nature of marriage and the parties intended to marry each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol <\/strong>and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh<\/strong> ruled that the absence of a valid marriage would not automatically prevent criminal proceedings for alleged cruelty against the male partner and his relatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court clarified that not every live-in relationship will attract Section 498A<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The initial burden will lie upon the woman to establish that the relationship was genuinely in the nature of marriage and that an intention to marry<\/strong> formed an intrinsic part of the relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSection 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This requirement is significant because a temporary, casual or ordinary live-in relationship cannot automatically be treated as a marriage for imposing criminal liability upon the man and his family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling came in an appeal filed by Dr Lokesh B.H. and other accused relatives<\/strong> against a November 2025 judgment of the Karnataka High Court refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complainant alleged that Lokesh had married her while concealing that his first marriage was still subsisting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She further accused Lokesh and his relatives of dowry harassment, cruelty and attempting to set her on fire<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These allegations have not been finally proved. The Supreme Court was examining whether the criminal prosecution should be terminated at the preliminary stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lokesh argued that the alleged second marriage was legally void and, therefore, he could not be treated as a \u201chusband\u201d under Section 498A IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Karnataka High Court<\/a><\/strong> rejected this argument and held that Section 498A could extend to void or voidable marriages and live-in relationships resembling marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court<\/strong> affirmed the broader legal principle but added an important safeguard: the woman must first establish the existence of a relationship in the nature of marriage and the parties\u2019 intention to marry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/a>, 2005<\/strong> expressly recognises relationships in the nature of marriage but largely provides civil remedies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 498A<\/strong>, by contrast, creates serious criminal liability and therefore requires a higher legal threshold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court confined its ruling specifically to Section 498A and clarified that the same interpretation would not automatically apply to every other penal provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most importantly, the Supreme Court directed strict compliance with the arrest safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench ordered that no live-in partner or his relatives should be arrested without a preliminary inquiry<\/strong> in such cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This protection is crucial from a men\u2019s-rights perspective because a disputed live-in relationship can now expose not only the man but also his parents, siblings and relatives to criminal proceedings traditionally associated with marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The preliminary inquiry must examine whether the relationship actually possessed the legal characteristics of marriage and whether the required intention to marry existed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A mere allegation of a live-in relationship, broken promise or domestic dispute cannot automatically justify arresting the man and his entire family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the facts of the case, the Supreme Court refused to quash the prosecution and dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The allegations will therefore be examined during the criminal proceedings, where the prosecution will have to establish the necessary facts and offences in accordance with law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law or Provision<\/strong><\/td> What It Means<\/strong><\/td> Application in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 498A, Indian Penal Code<\/a>, 1860<\/strong><\/td> Punishes a husband or his relative for subjecting a woman to legally defined cruelty, including specified harassment connected with unlawful demands.<\/td> The Supreme Court held that it may apply to a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage where an intention to marry is established.<\/td><\/tr> Section 85, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita<\/a>, 2023<\/strong><\/td> The corresponding present provision dealing with cruelty by a husband or his relatives after the BNS replaced the IPC.<\/td> The reported case arose under Section 498A IPC. The applicable provision depends upon the date of the alleged acts.<\/td><\/tr> Article 14, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.<\/td> The Court reportedly reasoned that completely excluding relationships resembling marriage from protection against cruelty may conflict with the object of the law.<\/td><\/tr> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/strong><\/td> Provides protection, residence, monetary and other remedies to women in domestic relationships, including relationships in the nature of marriage.<\/td> The Court distinguished its largely civil remedies from the criminal consequences imposed under Section 498A.<\/td><\/tr> Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar<\/em><\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court precedent prohibiting routine or automatic arrests in Section 498A and similar offences.<\/td> The Court directed that no live-in partner or relative should be arrested without a preliminary inquiry.<\/td><\/tr> Quashing of Criminal Proceedings<\/strong><\/td> Constitutional and statutory courts may terminate a criminal case where no offence is disclosed or continuing it would abuse the legal process.<\/td> The accused sought quashing, but the Supreme Court held that the prosecution should continue.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Particular<\/strong><\/td> Details<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> X and Ors v. State Of Karnataka and Anr<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court of India<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Justice Sanjay Karol <\/strong>and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Appellants<\/strong><\/td> Dr Lokesh B.H. and Other Accused Relatives<\/td><\/tr> Respondents<\/strong><\/td> State of Karnataka and Others<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n COUNSELS APPEARED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Party<\/strong><\/td> Counsel Details<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> For the Petitioners<\/strong><\/td> Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, with Advocates Ashritsai Torgal and Shiva Swaroop, instructed by Nuli & Nuli<\/td><\/tr> For the Respondents<\/strong><\/td> Advocates Naveen Sharma, Swati Bhushan Sharma, S.K. Sharma, Payal Gola, Hetu Arora Sethi, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Siddarth Agarwal, Rahul Jain, Kanak Bathwal and Sanidhya Kumar<\/td><\/tr> Additional Appearances<\/strong><\/td> Additional Solicitors General Brijendra Chahar and Aishwarya Bhati, with assisting advocates<\/td><\/tr> Amicus Curiae<\/strong><\/td> Advocate Nina Nariman<\/strong>, assisted by Advocates Svarit Uniyal Mishra and Paduja Mishra<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n