Supreme Court Clarifies Whether Section 498A IPC Applies to Live-in Relationships: Complete Analysis of Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 784)

Case: Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 784
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol

📥 Download the Supreme Court Judgment (PDF)

Readers can download the complete judgment from the official website of the Supreme Court of India:

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/2240/2240_2026_6_1501_69119_Judgement_01-Aug-2026.pdf

(Official Supreme Court PDF)

---

Introduction

The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant matrimonial law judgments of 2026 by examining an issue that frequently arises in criminal matrimonial litigation: Can a man in a live-in relationship be prosecuted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)?

In Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, the Court undertook an extensive examination of statutory interpretation, the legislative object behind Section 498A, previous Supreme Court precedents, and the legal distinction between a marriage and a live-in relationship. The judgment also discusses whether courts can expand the scope of a criminal provision through purposive interpretation or whether such expansion is exclusively within Parliament’s domain.

The decision is likely to become a leading precedent for criminal and matrimonial practitioners because it analyses not merely Section 498A but also the relationship between criminal remedies and the civil protections available under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

---

Facts of the Case

The complainant alleged that she had married the appellant according to Hindu customs and rituals on 17 October 2010. According to her, after the marriage she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, resulting in registration of two criminal cases.

Charge sheets were filed alleging offences under Section 498A IPC along with Sections 307, 504, 506, 494 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The appellant, however, challenged the very foundation of the prosecution. His primary contention was that no legally valid marriage had ever existed between the parties. Therefore, since Section 498A specifically applies only to the “husband” or his relatives, the criminal proceedings deserved to be quashed.

---

Karnataka High Court’s Decision

The Karnataka High Court rejected the appellant’s challenge.

The High Court held that the expression “husband” should receive a purposive interpretation. According to the High Court, if a man induces a woman to believe that she is lawfully married to him and subsequently subjects her to cruelty, he cannot later escape criminal liability by taking the plea that the marriage was void.

The High Court further observed that where parties live together in a relationship having all the characteristics of marriage, such a relationship may also receive protection under Section 498A if the allegations disclose cruelty.

Consequently, the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

Issue Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following important legal issue:

Whether the expression “husband” used in Section 498A IPC can include a man in a live-in relationship or whether the provision applies only to a legally recognised marriage?

---

Arguments on Behalf of the Husband

The appellant submitted that Section 498A is a penal provision and therefore must be interpreted strictly.

According to him, Parliament consciously used the expression “husband” and not broader terms such as “partner” or “person in a domestic relationship.” Criminal statutes cannot be enlarged merely because such an interpretation may appear socially desirable.

It was also argued that women in live-in relationships are not left remediless because they can invoke the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and other penal provisions wherever the facts justify prosecution.

Therefore, extending Section 498A to live-in relationships would amount to judicial legislation rather than interpretation.

---

Arguments on Behalf of the Wife

The complainant argued that Section 498A is a beneficial social legislation enacted to combat cruelty against women.

Accordingly, the provision should receive a purposive interpretation instead of a narrow technical construction. It was submitted that a dishonest person who induces a woman into believing that she is legally married should not be allowed to take advantage of his own deception.

Reliance was placed upon Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and other earlier Supreme Court judgments supporting a purposive interpretation of social welfare legislation.

---

What is a “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage”?

A significant part of the judgment discusses the meaning of the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage.”The Supreme Court clarified that every live-in relationship is not a relationship in the nature of marriage. Merely living together or being in a romantic relationship does not automatically confer the legal characteristics of marriage.

The Court referred to earlier decisions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where this expression has been interpreted to mean a relationship that closely resembles a marriage in substance. Relevant factors include the duration of the relationship, whether the parties shared a common household, whether they publicly represented themselves as husband and wife, whether they were financially and emotionally interdependent, and whether they assumed responsibilities ordinarily associated with marriage. These indicators help distinguish a stable domestic partnership from a casual or temporary relationship.

To understand this better, consider two examples.

Suppose a man and a woman live together continuously for ten years, maintain a common residence, introduce each other as husband and wife before relatives, friends and neighbours, jointly manage household expenses, celebrate festivals together, and make long-term financial decisions as a family. Even though there may not be a legally valid marriage, such a relationship may possess the characteristics of a relationship in the nature of marriage because it resembles a marital union in every practical sense.

Now consider another situation where two adults are in a romantic relationship, occasionally stay together during weekends or vacations, maintain separate homes, remain financially independent, never hold themselves out to society as spouses, and do not assume marital responsibilities. Such a relationship would ordinarily remain a casual live-in relationship and would not qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage.

This distinction becomes crucial because the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act expressly extends certain civil remedies to women in relationships in the nature of marriage. However, the principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether this concept could also be imported into Section 498A IPC, which is a penal provision using the expression “husband.” The Court therefore analysed the distinction between civil remedies under the Domestic Violence Act and criminal prosecution under Section 498A before interpreting the scope of the provision.

---

Supreme Court’s Discussion on Statutory Interpretation

Recognising the importance of the issue, the Supreme Court undertook an elaborate discussion on statutory interpretation.

The judgment analyses the doctrine of strict construction applicable to penal statutes, purposive interpretation, the mischief rule originating from Heydon’s Case, and numerous Constitution Bench decisions explaining how legislative language should be interpreted.

The Court observed that although penal statutes ordinarily require strict interpretation, strict interpretation does not mean rigid literalism. The duty of the Court is to ascertain the true legislative intent while ensuring that judges do not rewrite criminal statutes under the guise of interpretation.

---

Legislative Purpose Behind Section 498A

The Supreme Court examined the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, which introduced Section 498A into the Indian Penal Code.

The legislative history clearly demonstrates that Parliament intended to curb dowry deaths and cruelty inflicted upon married women by their husbands and in-laws. Throughout the legislative history, repeated references are made to married women, their husbands, and the husband’s relatives, thereby indicating the precise social evil sought to be addressed through the enactment.

---

Previous Supreme Court Judgments Considered

The Court carefully examined several earlier decisions, including:

• Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam
• U. Suvetha v. State
• Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
• Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The judgment analyses how these decisions should be harmonised while interpreting Section 498A and discusses the limited circumstances in which earlier judgments extended protection to women deceived into believing that they were legally married.

---

Why This Judgment is Important

This judgment goes far beyond deciding whether proceedings in one particular case should continue.

It explains the principles governing interpretation of penal statutes, discusses the distinction between criminal liability and civil remedies, examines the legislative intent behind Section 498A, and clarifies the relevance of relationships in the nature of marriage under different statutory frameworks.

Since Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita substantially reproduces Section 498A IPC, the reasoning contained in this judgment will remain relevant even under the new criminal law regime.

---

Practical Implications for Matrimonial Litigation

For matrimonial lawyers, the judgment highlights the importance of determining the precise legal nature of the relationship before initiating or defending criminal proceedings.

Cases involving legally valid marriages, void marriages, voidable marriages, deceptive marriages, and live-in relationships may each require different legal strategies. Lawyers must therefore evaluate not only the allegations but also the statutory basis on which criminal liability is sought to be imposed.

The judgment also demonstrates that matrimonial disputes frequently involve overlapping remedies under the Domestic Violence Act, maintenance provisions, and criminal law, making careful legal analysis essential before adopting litigation strategy.

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka is undoubtedly one of the most important matrimonial law decisions delivered in 2026. The Court has undertaken an extensive examination of the legislative history of Section 498A, the competing principles of statutory interpretation, earlier judicial precedents, and the legal distinction between marriage and relationships in the nature of marriage.

For lawyers, litigants, and students of matrimonial law, the judgment provides valuable guidance on the limits of judicial interpretation in criminal law while simultaneously explaining the broader legal framework governing domestic relationships. As disputes involving live-in relationships continue to increase, this decision is expected to serve as an important precedent while interpreting Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and other matrimonial offences.

---

Download the Complete Supreme Court Judgment (PDF)

Official Supreme Court PDF:

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/2240/2240_2026_6_1501_69119_Judgement_01-Aug-2026.pdf

---

Disclaimer: This article is intended for educational purposes only and should not be treated as legal advice. Every matrimonial dispute depends upon its own facts, and readers should consult a qualified advocate before taking legal action.