Absence of a Valid Marriage Is No Shield Against Section 498A: Supreme Court Extends Cruelty Law to Marriage-Like Live-In Relationships Where Intent to Marry Exists
Case Name: Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Others v. State of Karnataka & Another
Date of Judgment: 3 August 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 784
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 498A IPC is not limited to cruelty within a formally valid marriage. The term “husband” may include a male partner in a live-in relationship that is “in the nature of marriage”, provided the relationship was intended to culminate in marriage. However, Section 498A does not apply to every live-in relationship. The parties must have voluntarily and continuously cohabited, shared a household, represented themselves socially as a couple, maintained financial or domestic arrangements, and otherwise demonstrated a stable marital-like partnership. Since Section 498A is penal, the woman must initially establish that both parties intended to marry.
The Court clarified that satisfying the broader civil standard under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not sufficient by itself to attract criminal liability. Excluding such relationships solely for want of formal marriage would create an arbitrary distinction contrary to Article 14 and defeat the provision’s object of preventing domestic cruelty. The Court also held that civil remedies under the Domestic Violence Act are not an adequate substitute for the criminal deterrence provided by Section 498A. Recognising the possibility of misuse, the Court directed strict compliance with Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. Arrests of the partner or his relatives cannot be automatic; a preliminary enquiry and independent assessment of the necessity of arrest are mandatory. This interpretation was expressly confined to Section 498A IPC and does not automatically extend to other statutory provisions.
Summary: The appeals arose from two criminal cases filed by Smt. Theertha against Dr. Lokesh B.H. and his relatives. She alleged that they married according to Hindu rites on 17 October 2010, lived together in Bengaluru and that she was subjected to cruelty, dowry harassment and physical violence. The charge-sheets invoked Section 498A and other IPC provisions, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Dr. Lokesh denied the existence of a valid marriage and argued that Section 498A applies only to a legally wedded wife. The Karnataka High Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding that a man who represents himself as a husband and maintains a marriage-like relationship cannot escape liability merely by disputing the marriage’s validity.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants and the Union of India argued that Section 498A, being penal, must be strictly construed and cannot be judicially extended to live-in partners. The complainant, the State and the amicus curiae supported a purposive interpretation, contending that a man who assumes the role of a husband and later subjects the woman to cruelty should not benefit from a technical defect in the marriage.
The Court held that strict construction does not require blind literalism. Section 498A, enacted to prevent cruelty within domestic and matrimonial households, would be defeated if a man functioning as a husband could avoid liability solely because the marriage was invalid, void, disputed or not formally solemnised. Relying on Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, it held that the term “husband” may include a partner in a relationship resembling marriage.
Relevant factors include sustained cohabitation, a shared household, financial and domestic arrangements, social representation as spouses, children and the parties’ overall conduct. However, qualifying for civil relief under the Domestic Violence Act does not automatically attract Section 498A. Since criminal liability is involved, the relationship must also disclose a demonstrable intention to marry, the initial burden of proving which rests on the woman.
Applying these principles, the Court noted allegations that Dr. Lokesh concealed an earlier marriage, represented himself as the complainant’s husband, demanded dowry and caused physical injuries. At the quashing stage, these allegations had to be accepted at face value. Whether a marriage existed, whether the relationship had marital characteristics and whether cruelty occurred were matters for trial. As the allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, the Supreme Court declined to quash the proceedings.
Decision:The Supreme Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings and permitted the Trial Court to continue in accordance with law, clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the case. It held that Section 498A IPC may apply to a consensual live-in relationship in the nature of marriage where an intention to marry is established, the initial burden of proving such intention resting on the female partner. This interpretation is confined to Section 498A. The Court also directed strict compliance with the safeguards in Arnesh Kumar, prohibiting automatic arrest without a preliminary enquiry and assessment of its necessity.