Court Recognises Certain Live-In Relationships Under Section 498A
In the 498A Relationship Case, the Supreme Court ruled that a man in a qualifying live-in relationship can face prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty. The Court clarified that the relationship must closely resemble a marriage and include a genuine mutual intention to marry. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment and held that the absence of a legally solemnized marriage does not automatically bar prosecution under Section 498A.
Court Defines the Conditions for Invoking Section 498A
The Bench held that Section 498A can apply only to live-in relationships that qualify as relationships in the nature of marriage. The Court explained that an intention to marry must form an essential part of the relationship. Therefore, not every live-in arrangement will attract criminal liability under the provision.
Safeguards Introduced Against Misuse
At the same time, the Supreme Court laid down safeguards to prevent misuse of the law. The Bench held that the woman making the complaint must first establish that the relationship resembled a marriage and involved a genuine intention to marry.
Further, the Court directed investigating authorities not to arrest the accused immediately. Instead, they must conduct a mandatory preliminary inquiry before making any arrest in such cases.
Appeal Arose from Karnataka High Court Proceedings
The Supreme Court delivered the ruling while deciding an appeal filed by Dr. Lokesh B.H. and his family members. They had challenged a November 2025 judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them under Section 498A IPC.
The criminal case originated from a complaint filed by a woman. She alleged that Dr. Lokesh married her while concealing his existing marriage. She also accused him and his relatives of subjecting her to physical cruelty, demanding dowry, and attempting to set her on fire.
Court Rejects Argument Based on Void Marriage
Before the courts, Dr. Lokesh argued that the alleged second marriage was void under personal laws. Therefore, he claimed he could not be treated as a “husband” under Section 498A IPC.
However, the Karnataka High Court rejected that argument. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning. It held that the invalidity of a marriage does not automatically protect an accused from prosecution if the relationship otherwise bears the characteristics of marriage and includes a genuine intention to marry.
The 498A Relationship Case confirms that courts will examine the true nature of the relationship instead of relying only on its legal status. It also ensures that women in qualifying live-in relationships can seek protection against cruelty while preserving safeguards against frivolous prosecutions.
