Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India, in Dr. Lokesh BH & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 753, delivered a significant judgment expanding the scope of protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that a woman in a live-in relationship “in the nature of marriage” is entitled to protection against cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The Court clarified that the provision applies only where the live-in relationship resembles a marriage, is between consenting adults, and is accompanied by an intention to marry.
The case arose after the petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A IPC, contending that no valid marriage existed between him and the complainant. According to him, the offence of cruelty under Section 498A could be invoked only where there was a legally valid marriage. The complainant, however, asserted that the parties shared a relationship equivalent to marriage and that she had suffered cruelty during the course of that relationship.
The Karnataka High Court rejected the petitioner’s plea, holding that the expression “husband” under Section 498A deserved a purposive interpretation. Challenging this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The appeal required the Court to decide whether women in marriage-like live-in relationships could be denied statutory protection merely because the relationship lacked formal legal recognition.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that Section 498A IPC specifically uses the term “husband” and therefore applies only to legally married couples. Since no valid marriage existed between the parties, he contended that prosecution under the provision was legally unsustainable. He submitted that extending the provision beyond its express language would amount to judicial legislation and would create criminal liability where Parliament had not intended it.
The respondent and the State supported the continuation of criminal proceedings. They argued that Section 498A is a beneficial provision enacted to protect women from cruelty within domestic relationships. Restricting its application only to formally married women would defeat its legislative purpose and leave women in marriage-like relationships without protection against abuse. It was further submitted that constitutional guarantees of equality require similar protection for women facing identical forms of domestic cruelty irrespective of the formal status of their relationship.
The Amicus Curiae also assisted the Court by emphasizing the need to interpret the provision in a manner consistent with constitutional values, social realities and the objective of preventing violence against women.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision and refused to quash the criminal proceedings. The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of Section 498A IPC, holding that the expression “husband” includes a man living with a woman in a relationship that is “in the nature of marriage.” The Bench observed that the harm caused by cruelty does not become less serious merely because the parties are not formally married.
The Court held that excluding women in marriage-like live-in relationships from the protection of Section 498A would create an unreasonable classification lacking any rational nexus with the object of the provision. Such a distinction, it observed, violates Article 14 of the Constitution because both married women and women in relationships resembling marriage are equally vulnerable to domestic cruelty.
Relying on K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., the Court reiterated that the constitutional right to choose one’s life partner forms part of personal liberty. If individuals are free to choose non-traditional relationships, the law cannot deny them protection solely because the relationship is not formally solemnized.
The Court clarified that its interpretation is limited to Section 498A IPC and does not automatically extend to other statutory provisions. It further emphasized that the protection applies only to live-in relationships that genuinely qualify as relationships in the nature of marriage, involving consenting adults and an established intention to marry.
To prevent misuse, the Court directed that the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding arrest in Section 498A cases must be strictly followed. No person accused in such cases should be arrested mechanically without the mandatory preliminary assessment.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and permitted the trial to continue, clarifying that its observations were confined to deciding the question of quashing and should not influence the merits of the criminal case. The judgment marks a progressive development in criminal jurisprudence by ensuring that constitutional equality and protection against domestic cruelty extend to women in relationships that are, in substance, equivalent to marriage.