Can Section 498A Apply to a Live-in Relationship? Understanding the Legal Position
Introduction
Indian society has witnessed significant changes in the way personal relationships and family structures are formed. Alongside traditional marriages, live-in relationships have increasingly become a subject of legal consideration.
This evolution, however, raises difficult questions when a relationship breaks down and allegations of cruelty, harassment or dowry-related conduct arise.
One such question is particularly significant:
Can a man in a live-in relationship be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, or under the corresponding Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
The issue has reached the Supreme Court in proceedings arising from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court has specifically taken up the question whether a man in a live-in relationship or a relationship in the nature of marriage can be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC or the corresponding provision under the BNS.
The issue involves an important balance between protecting women from cruelty and ensuring that criminal liability remains firmly grounded in statutory language.
Section 498A IPC: The Background
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced to address cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.
The provision provides criminal protection against conduct amounting to cruelty, including wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, as well as certain forms of harassment connected with unlawful demands.
With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the corresponding provision is contained in Section 85, while Section 86 deals with the meaning of cruelty.
Therefore, while Section 498A remains relevant to offences committed during the operation of the IPC, conduct governed by the new criminal law framework is addressed under the corresponding provisions of the BNS.
The Central Legal Question: Who Is a “Husband”?
The statutory language of Section 498A refers to a “husband or relative of husband.”
The ordinary meaning of “husband” would suggest a legally recognised marital relationship.
This creates a difficult legal question when the parties have never formally married.
Can a man who lives with a woman in a relationship resembling marriage be treated as a “husband” for the limited purpose of applying the protection against cruelty?
Or would doing so amount to extending a penal provision beyond the language used by Parliament?
The answer requires the Court to reconcile two competing considerations:
- the protective purpose of the legislation; and
- the principle that criminal liability must have a clear statutory foundation.
The Karnataka High Court’s Approach
The issue arose before the Karnataka High Court in Lokesh B.H. & Others v. State of Karnataka.
In its judgment dated 18 November 2025, the Karnataka High Court considered whether Section 498A could apply where the relationship was not a legally valid marriage but was a live-in relationship bearing the attributes of marriage.
The High Court adopted a purposive approach and held that the expression “husband” in Section 498A could, in appropriate circumstances, extend to a person in a void or voidable marital relationship and to a live-in relationship bearing the essential attributes of marriage, provided the statutory ingredients of cruelty were otherwise satisfied.
The High Court’s reasoning focused on the nature and substance of the relationship rather than treating formal validity of the marriage as the only determining factor.
Importantly, the High Court did not treat the existence of a live-in relationship by itself as sufficient. The allegations would still have to satisfy the statutory requirements relating to cruelty.
The Supreme Court’s Intervention
The Karnataka High Court’s interpretation was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2240–2241 of 2026.
In its order dated 13 February 2026, the Supreme Court expressly identified the question for consideration as whether a man in a live-in relationship or a relationship in the nature of marriage can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 498A IPC or the corresponding provision under the BNS.
Considering the importance of the issue, the Court brought the Union of India into the proceedings and sought assistance on the legal question. The Court also appointed Ms. Nina R. Nariman as amicus curiae and directed the filing of counter and rejoinder affidavits.
The Supreme Court also stayed further proceedings in the underlying matter pending consideration of the issue.
A Crucial Distinction: Not Every Live-in Relationship Is a Relationship in the Nature of Marriage
It would be incorrect to assume that every live-in relationship automatically becomes a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
Indian law has recognised that some live-in relationships may possess characteristics sufficiently similar to marriage to attract particular legal protections, while others may simply constitute cohabitation without the characteristics of a marital relationship.
The distinction can therefore become highly fact-specific.
Relevant considerations may include:
- the duration of the relationship;
- the nature of the shared household;
- the manner in which the parties represented themselves to others;
- financial arrangements;
- domestic responsibilities;
- the degree of permanence of the relationship; and
- the intention and conduct of the parties.
Consequently, the mere fact that two persons lived together does not, by itself, establish a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Why the Distinction Matters in Criminal Law
The distinction assumes even greater importance when criminal liability is involved.
Criminal law operates differently from purely social or welfare legislation.
A court dealing with a criminal prosecution must determine whether the statutory ingredients of the offence are satisfied. A relationship cannot be brought within the scope of a penal provision merely because it resembles another category in a general social sense.
At the same time, an excessively formal interpretation may potentially exclude persons whom the protective purpose of the legislation was intended to safeguard.
The Supreme Court therefore faces a delicate interpretative exercise:
How far can the protective purpose of Section 498A or Section 85 extend without effectively rewriting the statutory expression “husband”?
Protection Against Cruelty Remains the Central Concern
The objective of Section 498A was to address cruelty against women within a domestic or marital setting.
Cruelty may take several forms, including serious physical or mental harm and harassment connected with unlawful demands.
The protective objective of the legislation cannot be overlooked merely because the relationship is unconventional.
However, protection must operate within the framework of the law.
A person facing criminal prosecution must still be entitled to the ordinary safeguards of criminal jurisprudence, including the requirement that the prosecution establish the ingredients of the offence.
Thus, protection and due process are not competing values; both are essential to a fair legal system.
The Significance of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
The issue has acquired additional importance because the IPC has now been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 85 of the BNS corresponds to Section 498A IPC, while Section 86 defines cruelty.
The Supreme Court’s order specifically refers to both Section 498A IPC and the corresponding provision under the BNS.
Consequently, the eventual judicial interpretation may have significance beyond the particular IPC-era proceedings from which the issue arose.
Changing Social Relationships and the Law
The issue is part of a broader development in Indian jurisprudence.
Courts have increasingly encountered legal questions arising from relationships that do not fit neatly within the traditional framework of marriage.
These questions have arisen in areas such as:
- protection against domestic violence;
- maintenance;
- legitimacy and rights of children;
- property and succession;
- matrimonial remedies; and
- criminal liability.
The law must therefore continually determine how established statutory concepts should operate when social relationships evolve.
But such development must take place within the constitutional and statutory framework rather than by disregarding legislative language.
A Balance Between Social Reality and Statutory Interpretation
There are compelling considerations on both sides.
In favour of a broader interpretation
A woman who has lived in a relationship substantially resembling marriage may face serious cruelty and harassment. Excluding her from protection solely because the relationship was not formally solemnised could potentially undermine the protective purpose of the legislation.
In favour of a cautious interpretation
Section 498A and Section 85 are criminal provisions. Expanding criminal liability beyond the language enacted by Parliament raises concerns regarding statutory interpretation, fair notice and the limits of judicial law-making.
The challenge is therefore not simply to choose between these two approaches.
The real task is to determine whether the existing statutory language can legitimately accommodate the relationship without creating criminal liability beyond what the law permits.
What the Supreme Court May Ultimately Clarify
The proceedings provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify several important questions, including:
- Whether the expression “husband” can extend to a man in a relationship in the nature of marriage.
- Whether the concept of a relationship in the nature of marriage can be applied within a criminal provision such as Section 498A.
- What factual characteristics must be established before such a relationship can attract the provision.
- Whether the same interpretation should inform the corresponding provision under Section 85 of the BNS.
- How the protective purpose of the legislation should be reconciled with the principle of strict construction of penal provisions.
The answers could have considerable significance for future cases.
Why This Issue Matters Beyond One Case
This is not merely a dispute about terminology.
The interpretation of the word “husband” could determine the extent to which criminal law can respond to relationships that function like marriages without being formally recognised as marriages.
At the same time, the case demonstrates why legal developments involving changing social structures require careful judicial consideration.
The law must protect individuals from genuine abuse while ensuring that criminal provisions are not expanded beyond their legitimate statutory boundaries.
Conclusion
The question of whether Section 498A IPC—or its corresponding Section 85 of the BNS—can apply to a live-in relationship is a significant developing issue in Indian criminal and family law.
The Karnataka High Court has taken a broad, purposive approach, holding that the expression “husband” can extend to a relationship in the nature of marriage where the statutory ingredients of cruelty are satisfied.
The Supreme Court has since taken up the issue for consideration. The matter has continued through subsequent hearings in March and May 2026, but the central substantive question remains pending in the material presently available.
The ultimate challenge is to strike an appropriate balance between protection from cruelty, changing social realities, and the fundamental principle that criminal liability must remain rooted in law.
Final Thoughts
The evolution of family and personal relationships presents new questions for the legal system.
But legal development should not be driven solely by changing social practices, nor should established legal concepts be applied without regard to contemporary realities.
The more difficult and important task is to find the balance between the two.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue in Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka is therefore significant—not merely because of its implications for live-in relationships, but because it raises a broader question about how criminal law should respond when social relationships evolve faster than statutory language.
MENTO ISAC
Advocate | Proprietor – Mento Associates
Disclaimer
This article is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. It does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular case. The applicability of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita depends upon the facts, applicable law, the precise nature of the relationship, and the conduct alleged. The legal position discussed in this article is subject to further judicial determination.