SK Law House Legal Blog

In a significant ruling on criminal-law protection within non-marital domestic relationships, the Supreme Court of India has held that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can apply to a limited class of live-in relationships: relationships in the nature of marriage where an intention to marry is established. At the same time, the Court imposed an important restraint. The initial burden lies on the woman invoking the provision, a higher standard applies because the provision is penal, and no accused live-in partner or relative may be arrested without preliminary inquiry.

The judgment in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 INSC 784, was delivered on 3 August 2026 by Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. It arose from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2240-2241 of 2026 and runs to 77 pages.

The ruling in brief

• Section 498A IPC can protect a woman in a live-in relationship that qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of marriage".
• The relationship must be between consenting adults and must include an established intention to marry.
• Not every live-in relationship is covered. Casual cohabitation or a relationship deliberately kept outside marriage does not automatically attract Section 498A.
• The woman seeking protection bears the initial burden of showing the required marriage-like character and intention.
• The Court expressly confined this interpretation to Section 498A IPC; it does not automatically alter other statutory provisions.
• The arrest safeguards in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar must be strictly followed. There can be no arrest of the live-in partner or his relative without preliminary inquiry.
• On the facts, the Supreme Court refused to quash the two criminal cases. The trial court may proceed, without treating the judgment's prima facie observations as findings on guilt.

How the dispute reached the Supreme Court

Respondent No. 2 alleged that she and Dr. Lokesh B.H. married according to Hindu customs on 17 October 2010 and lived together in Bengaluru. Two complaints followed after their relationship deteriorated. One resulted in a charge sheet under Section 498A IPC. The other led to charges under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 307, 494 and 149 IPC, together with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The central factual dispute was whether a valid marriage existed at all. The appellant denied the marriage. The complainant maintained that there was a subsisting marital relationship and alleged concealment of an earlier marriage, dowry harassment and physical injury.

The Karnataka High Court declined to quash the proceedings. It adopted a purposive interpretation of "husband" and held that Section 498A was not necessarily limited to a legally valid marriage where the relationship bore the attributes of marriage and the statutory ingredients of cruelty were alleged. That decision brought the interpretive question to the Supreme Court.

Strict construction versus the social purpose of Section 498A

The appellants argued that Section 498A is a penal provision and therefore must be strictly construed. On that view, "husband" means a man in a valid marriage. They also submitted that women outside a valid marriage are not left without remedies because the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and other penal provisions may apply.

The Union of India supported a narrow construction and argued that any gap should be addressed by Parliament. The complainant, the State of Karnataka and the amicus curiae supported a purposive interpretation. Their position was that a man who creates or enters a marriage-like domestic relationship should not escape the law's protection merely because the relationship is later shown to be void or legally defective.

The Supreme Court reconciled these competing principles. Penal laws ordinarily receive strict construction, but interpretation cannot defeat a socially beneficial provision's object. Section 498A was introduced to combat cruelty within the domestic setting, including but not limited to dowry-linked conduct. The Court concluded that the word "husband" could receive a purposive meaning for this provision, while the provision's criminal consequences required a carefully defined threshold.

What is a "relationship in the nature of marriage"?

The Court distinguished the broad category of live-in relationships from the narrower category of relationships in the nature of marriage. It drew on earlier decisions, including D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, which identify contextual indicators rather than a single mechanical test.

Relevant indicators can include the duration of cohabitation, a shared household, pooling of financial and domestic arrangements, sexual relations, children, public socialisation as a couple, and the parties' conduct and intention. The factors are illustrative, not an automatic checklist. Evidence and the full factual setting remain essential.

For Section 498A, the Supreme Court added a narrower criminal-law requirement: the relationship must not only resemble marriage but must carry the requisite intention to marry. That intention differentiates the criminal provision from the broader civil protection available under the Domestic Violence Act. The person alleging that intention bears the initial burden of establishing it.

The Court's key legal holding

The judgment holds that a woman in a qualifying relationship in the nature of marriage is protected by Section 498A IPC. The Court reasoned that cruelty does not become less harmful merely because it occurs before the legal formalities of marriage are completed. Denying protection solely because the relationship is not yet a valid marriage would, in the Court's view, create an irrational distinction unrelated to the object of preventing domestic cruelty.

This is not a declaration that every live-in partner is a "husband" for all purposes. The Court expressly stated that its extended interpretation is limited to Section 498A IPC and does not affect any other provision. It therefore should not be used as a shortcut to decide maintenance, succession, matrimonial status, bigamy, property rights or any other statutory question. Nor should the ruling be described as converting live-in relationships into marriages.

Arrest is not automatic: strict compliance with Arnesh Kumar

The judgment is equally important for what it says about personal liberty. The Supreme Court acknowledged repeated concerns about misuse of Section 498A as a means of settling scores. Because the ruling extends potential criminal exposure to a new and fact-sensitive category, the Court reinforced the arrest safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar.

Police cannot arrest merely because an accusation is cognizable and non-bailable. The necessity of arrest must be examined and recorded. In a case arising from an alleged relationship in the nature of marriage, the judgment goes further in its conclusion: neither the alleged live-in partner nor his relative shall be arrested without preliminary inquiry.

This protection matters because the very existence and legal character of the relationship may be disputed. Investigators must first examine whether the relationship was genuinely marriage-like, whether the parties were consenting adults, whether an intention to marry is prima facie shown, and whether the complaint discloses the statutory form of cruelty. A failed relationship, ordinary incompatibility or a bare label of "husband" is not by itself enough.

Why the proceedings were not quashed

The Supreme Court applied the settled principles governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. At this stage, the court generally tests whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence; it does not conduct a mini-trial.

The complaints alleged concealment of a prior marriage, dowry harassment by the appellant and family members, and physical injury including burns to the complainant's leg. Whether those allegations are true must be decided at trial. Since they could not be rejected as legally incapable of constituting an offence at the threshold, the Supreme Court refused to quash the proceedings.

The Court carefully clarified that this conclusion is not a finding on the merits. The trial court remains free to decide the evidence in accordance with law.

Practical impact of 2026 INSC 784

For complainants, the ruling closes a potential gap where the domestic relationship was marriage-like and accompanied by an intention to marry, but formal validity is disputed. It prevents a person from using the legal defect of a relationship as an automatic shield against a cruelty complaint.

For accused persons, the judgment supplies meaningful limiting principles. The complainant carries an initial evidentiary burden; not all live-in relationships qualify; the holding is confined to Section 498A; and preliminary inquiry is mandatory before arrest. Relatives cannot be implicated merely because of their family connection, and the ingredients of cruelty still must be specifically alleged and proved.

For police, magistrates and trial courts, the decision requires a two-stage discipline: first identify whether the relationship meets the Court's narrow marriage-like test with intent to marry; then separately examine whether the alleged conduct satisfies the statutory definition of cruelty. The relationship alone proves neither cruelty nor guilt.

Section 85 BNS: an important caution

Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the successor provision addressing cruelty by a husband or his relative. However, the Supreme Court's formal conclusion in this case says that the extended interpretation is limited to Section 498A IPC and shall not affect any other provision. Any claim about the precise application of this judgment to Section 85 BNS must therefore be made cautiously and assessed in the relevant case.

Conclusion

Dr. Lokesh B.H. is a carefully limited expansion, not a blanket equation of live-in relationships with marriage. Section 498A may apply when consenting adults lived in a relationship in the nature of marriage and an intention to marry is established. At the same time, the Court built in a higher evidentiary threshold, preserved the need to prove cruelty, confined the interpretation to Section 498A, and required preliminary inquiry before any arrest.

The decision's enduring importance lies in that balance: it recognises changing family arrangements while retaining criminal-law safeguards against arbitrary arrest and overbroad prosecution.

Authoritative sources and further reading

• Official Supreme Court judgment PDF: Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 784
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 on India Code
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on India Code
• Karnataka High Court judgment challenged in the appeal

Legal note: This article is an educational case summary, not legal advice. The application of Section 498A, Section 85 BNS, arrest safeguards and quashing principles depends on the allegations, evidence, date of the alleged acts and procedural posture of each case.