Section 498A IPC Now Extends to Live-In Relationships "In the Nature of Marriage" — Supreme Court (2026 INSC 784)

Can a woman in a live-in relationship use Section 498A IPC — the provision that protects married women from cruelty — to file a case against her partner? For years, courts across India gave inconsistent answers. Some said only a legally married woman is protected. Others looked at the substance of the relationship.

On August 3, 2026, a bench of the Supreme Court of India settled this question in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 INSC 784. The Court held that Section 498A IPC applies to live-in relationships that qualify as "relationships in the nature of marriage." This judgment is important for every judiciary aspirant studying criminal law, family law, and constitutional equality provisions.

1. Understanding Section 498A IPC and Its Purpose

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 penalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward a woman. The word "husband" appears in the section. It is a cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence. The corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is Section 85.

Parliament enacted Section 498A in 1983 specifically to address domestic cruelty against married women — dowry-related harassment, physical abuse, and mental cruelty. The provision was a response to a growing number of dowry deaths and matrimonial violence cases that were going unpunished.

The text of the section uses the word "husband." This led to the argument that only a legally married woman — one whose marriage is valid under personal law — is protected. Partners in live-in relationships, cohabitation arrangements, or void marriages were said to fall outside the section's scope.

2. The Facts of Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 784)

In this case, the accused (Dr. Lokesh B.H.) challenged proceedings under Section 498A IPC on the ground that the complainant was not his lawfully wedded wife. The accused disputed the validity of the marriage. The complainant claimed a customary marriage followed by cohabitation. The accused denied the marriage had ever taken place.

The accused argued that without a valid marriage, Section 498A IPC simply did not apply. He sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS).

The Supreme Court was therefore asked: can Section 498A IPC be invoked where the existence and validity of marriage itself is disputed? And does the provision extend to live-in relationships at all?

Read Blog:The Residential House Exemption Under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC Dies With the Judgment-Debtor

3. What the Supreme Court Held

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that Section 498A IPC is not confined to legally wedded wives. The provision extends to women in live-in relationships that qualify as "relationships in the nature of marriage."

The Court relied on the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which already uses the phrase "relationship in the nature of marriage" and extends protection to women in such relationships. The Supreme Court had interpreted this phrase in earlier decisions — including D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) — to mean relationships that have the characteristics of marriage, even if not formalised legally.

The Court held that interpreting Section 498A to exclude women in marriage-like relationships creates an artificial distinction that violates Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before law). Cruelty by a male partner is the same harm regardless of whether the couple has a marriage certificate. Denying protection on that technical ground is irrational and discriminatory.

The Court further held that the reformative and protective purpose of Section 498A must guide its interpretation. The provision exists to protect women from cruelty in intimate domestic relationships — and that purpose is equally applicable to relationships in the nature of marriage.

4. What Qualifies as a "Relationship in the Nature of Marriage"?

The Court was careful to clarify that not every live-in relationship qualifies. The protection is not extended to casual cohabitation, weekend arrangements, or temporary relationships. The standard is higher.

The Court laid down eight illustrative (not exhaustive) indicators of a relationship in the nature of marriage: both parties must be consenting adults; the relationship must demonstrate an intent to marry; there must be shared domestic life; the parties must represent themselves publicly as partners; financial interdependence is a relevant factor; the duration and continuity of the relationship matters; shared social responsibilities may be considered; and the relationship must not be one that either party could not have entered into lawfully.

This last point is important: if either party was already married to someone else at the time of the live-in relationship, the relationship may not qualify as being "in the nature of marriage."

5. The Constitutional Basis: Article 14 and Protective Interpretation

The Court's reasoning rested on two constitutional pillars. First, Article 14 prohibits arbitrary classification. Treating married women and women in marriage-like relationships differently for the purpose of Section 498A protection lacks any rational basis linked to the law's objective (preventing cruelty). The classification therefore violates Article 14.

Second, the Court applied the principle of purposive interpretation. A penal provision designed to protect vulnerable persons in domestic relationships must be interpreted in the manner that best achieves that protective purpose. Narrow literal construction that excludes an entire class of victims contradicts the statute's raison d'etre.

Prepare smarter with the best online judiciary courses featuring expert guidance, study material, mock tests, and exam-focused preparation for Judicial Services exams. 

6. Connection to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023

Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is the successor to Section 498A IPC. The BNS came into effect on July 1, 2024. The language of Section 85 BNS mirrors Section 498A IPC closely in substance.

The principles established in Dr. Lokesh B.H. regarding the scope of the provision's protection will apply equally to Section 85 BNS, even though the Supreme Court decided this case with reference to Section 498A IPC (which applied to offences before July 2024). Aspirants must know both provisions and this cross-reference.

7. Exam Significance for Judiciary Aspirants

This 2026 judgment is tested in criminal law sections of Civil Judge, PCS J, and APO exams. It sits at the intersection of criminal law, family law, constitutional law, and evidence.

From this case, expect mains questions like: "The Supreme Court has extended Section 498A IPC to live-in relationships. Critically examine the basis for this extension and its implications." Your answer must cover the facts, the court's holdings, the constitutional basis (Article 14, purposive interpretation), and the connection to the Domestic Violence Act.

In prelims, expect objective questions on: which Act uses "relationship in the nature of marriage" (Domestic Violence Act 2005), what the BNS equivalent of Section 498A is (Section 85), and the citation of this case (2026 INSC 784).

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is the full case name and citation of this judgment?

Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 INSC 784. Decided on August 3, 2026 by a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

Q2. What did the Supreme Court hold on Section 498A and live-in relationships?

Section 498A IPC applies to live-in relationships that qualify as "relationships in the nature of marriage." The Court held that excluding such women violates Article 14 and defeats the protective purpose of the provision.

Q3. What is Section 498A IPC?

Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) penalises a husband or his relatives for subjecting a woman to cruelty. It is cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.

Q4. What is "relationship in the nature of marriage"?

A live-in relationship between consenting adults where both parties demonstrate intent to marry and the relationship has marriage-like characteristics — shared domestic life, public representation as partners, financial interdependence, and continuity over time.

Q5. Does this ruling mean all live-in partners are now covered by Section 498A?

No. Only relationships that qualify as being "in the nature of marriage" are covered. Casual or temporary cohabitation does not qualify. The court laid down eight illustrative indicators to determine qualification.

Q6. What is the Domestic Violence Act's relevance here?

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 already covers women in "relationships in the nature of marriage." The Supreme Court used this statutory phrase to extend the same logic to Section 498A IPC.

Q7. What constitutional right was invoked?

Article 14 (right to equality). The Court held that treating legally married women differently from women in marriage-like relationships for the purpose of Section 498A protection is an arbitrary and irrational classification.

Q8. What is the BNS equivalent of Section 498A IPC?

Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (effective July 1, 2024) is the corresponding provision. The language and protective purpose are substantially the same.

Q9. Can a man in a live-in relationship be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC under this ruling?

Yes, if the live-in relationship qualifies as one "in the nature of marriage" and the elements of cruelty under Section 498A are established. The ruling makes such prosecution legally maintainable — courts can no longer dismiss cases at the threshold solely because there is no formal marriage.

Q10. How does this case connect to the D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) ruling?

The Velusamy case had interpreted "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Domestic Violence Act. The 2026 Lokesh BH judgment applied the same concept to Section 498A IPC, borrowing the framework from Velusamy.

Conclusion

Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 784) is a landmark 2026 ruling that extends the protection of Section 498A IPC to women in live-in relationships that resemble marriages in substance. It closes a loophole that had allowed some accused to escape criminal liability simply by disputing the existence of a formal marriage.

For Civil Judge, PCS J, and APO aspirants, this case is essential reading in criminal law and constitutional law. It demonstrates how the Supreme Court uses purposive interpretation and equality principles to expand protective provisions in step with evolving social realities.

Aashayein Judiciary, under the guidance of Nitesh Sir, covers all recent Supreme Court judgments alongside the foundational legal principles — so you never enter an exam unaware of a case decided in the past year. Join our Online Judiciary Coaching today and stay ahead of every development.