Does Section 498A apply to live-in relationships? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court on Monday held that a man in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted for subjecting the woman to cruelty if the relationship was in the nature of marriage and the parties intended to marry each other. [Lokesh v. State of Karnataka]

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh ruled that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) would apply to such relationships even in the absence of a legally valid marriage.

“Section 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,” the Court held.

However, the Court clarified that not every live-in relationship would attract the penal provision. The initial burden of establishing that the parties intended to marry would lie on the woman seeking protection under the law.

A copy of the judgment is yet to be made available.

The ruling came in an appeal filed by Dr Lokesh BH and others against a November 2025 judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to quash criminal proceedings against them.

The case arose from a complaint by a woman who alleged that Lokesh had married her after concealing the fact that his first marriage was still subsisting. She accused him and his relatives of dowry harassment, cruelty and attempting to set her on fire.

Lokesh argued that the alleged second marriage was void and that he could not, therefore, be treated as the woman’s “husband” for the purpose of Section 498A.

The High Court rejected the contention and held that the provision could apply to void or voidable marriages as well as live-in relationships resembling marriage. The Supreme Court affirmed the broader conclusion, but qualified it by requiring proof of an intention to marry.

The apex court observed that Section 498A was introduced to deter reprehensible conduct by husbands and their relatives towards women. Its larger purpose was to secure equality for women and move away from notions of male superiority inherited from an earlier era.

The law must respond to changes in society, the Court added. It reasoned that distinguishing between married women and women in relationships resembling marriage would have no rational connection with the object of preventing domestic cruelty and would, therefore, offend Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court also rejected the argument that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 adequately protects women in live-in relationships. It noted that although the Domestic Violence Act has a wider ambit and recognises relationships in the nature of marriage, it largely provides civil remedies. Section 498A, by contrast, imposes criminal liability and consequently requires a higher threshold.

The Bench confined its interpretation specifically to Section 498A and clarified that it would not automatically affect the interpretation of other penal provisions.

It also directed strict compliance with the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. No live-in partner or relative accused of cruelty in such a relationship should be arrested without a preliminary inquiry, the Court ordered.

On the facts, the Bench concluded that it was not a fit case for quashing the prosecution and dismissed the appeal.

Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli appeared for the petitioners along with Advocates Ashritsai Torgal and Shiva Swaroop, instructed by Nuli & Nuli.

The respondents were represented by Advocates Naveen Sharma, Swati Bhushan Sharma, SK Sharma, Payal Gola, Hetu Arora Sethi, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Siddarth Agarwal, Rahul Jain, Kanak Bathwal and Sanidhya Kumar.

Additional Solicitors General Brijendra Chahar and Aishwarya Bhati, along with Advocates Gurmeet Singh Makker, BK Satija, Seema Bengani, Rajeshwari Shankar, Raman Yadav and Aarushi Singh, N Visakamurthy, Himanshu Jain, Kumari Arti and Surya Nath Pandy also appeared in the matter.

Advocate Nina Nariman assisted as amicus curiae with Advocates Svarit Uniyal Mishra and Paduja Mishra.