Can protection against domestic cruelty extend to live-in relationships? | Explained

Published 8 August 2026 · india

The story so far: In Dr Lokesh B.H. & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Anr, decided on August 3, 2026, the Supreme Court considered

The story so far: In Dr Lokesh B.H. & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Anr, decided on August 3, 2026, the Supreme Court considered whether Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could apply to a man in a live-in relationship and whether the expression “husband” under the section is confined to a legally valid marriage. The appellant argued that since he and the complainant were never validly married, Section 498A could not apply to him. The Karnataka High Court had rejected this argument and refused to quash the criminal proceedings against him. He appealed to the Supreme Court. Rejecting the argument, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the protection under Section 498A is not confined to legally married women. It can also extend to women in live-in relationships that are “in the nature of marriage”, subject to certain conditions. What is Section 498A of IPC? The provision now corresponds to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced Section 498A of the IPC. It deals with husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. It reads that whoever — being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman — subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. For the purposes of this section, “cruelty means” (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. What is the ruling? The Supreme Court held that the protection against domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) is not confined to legally married women.

It ruled that the provision also applies to live-in relationships that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage”, provided there is an intention to marry. The court clarified that not every live-in relationship would attract Section 498A. The protection is available only to relationships between two consenting adults that meet the legal test of a relationship in the nature of marriage. It also made clear that this expanded interpretation is limited to Section 498A and does not automatically extend to other statutory provisions. Rejecting the argument that Section 498A, being a penal provision, should apply only to legally married couples, the Bench held that the law must be interpreted in a manner that advances its object of preventing domestic cruelty. “The interpretation given to this penal provision must be an interpretation which keeps in view the reformative objective, or else its mandate will be defeated.” At the same time, the court recognised concerns over misuse of Section 498A. It held that the initial burden of establishing that the relationship was in the nature of marriage and carried an intention to marry would lie on the woman seeking protection. It also directed that the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) must be strictly followed and that no partner or relative should be arrested without complying with those safeguards. The Bench remarked: “In all cases, A and B chose each other and decided to live life together. The only difference is that in the first case they are married and in the other two they are not. Why should there be any difference in the protection that is given to a woman if she faces cruelty at the hands of the husband/partner or his family members? The law fairly well recognises the right and freedom of an individual to choose the person they want to be with as an inextricable part of dignity and personal liberty.” Is protection under the Domestic Violence Act enough? The court referred to Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), wherein it was recognised that though a live-in relationship between two consenting adults is not an offence, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was enacted “to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women” by covering couples in a relationship in the nature of marriage.