New Delhi: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a significant question of criminal law: whether a man in a live-in relationship, described as a relationship in the nature of marriage, can be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or the corresponding provision under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Lokesh B.H. and others challenging a November 18, 2025 judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which held that Section 498A IPC could apply even in a live-in relationship resembling marriage.
In its order dated February 13, 2026, the Bench framed the core issue in clear terms:
“The pertinent question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether a man who is in a live-in relationship / a relationship in the nature of marriage with a woman can be prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or its corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”
Section 498A IPC criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. The question before the Court is whether the term “husband” in the provision can be interpreted to include a man who cohabits with a woman in a relationship akin to marriage, even if the marriage is void or legally non-existent.
The Karnataka High Court had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated on a complaint by a woman alleging domestic cruelty and dowry harassment. The complainant alleged that the accused had harassed her and attempted to burn her in connection with dowry demands. It was also contended that the man had a subsisting earlier marriage. The accused argued that since the alleged marriage was void ab initio, Section 498A IPC could not apply.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that the expression “husband” under Section 498A cannot be construed in a narrow or technical sense so as to defeat the object of the provision. Justice Suraj Govindraj observed that the legislative intent behind Section 498A is to protect women from cruelty and that such protection cannot be denied merely because the marriage is void, voidable, or because the parties were in a live-in arrangement resembling marriage.
The High Court reasoned that where parties cohabit and present themselves as husband and wife, and the relationship bears the essential characteristics of marriage, criminal liability for cruelty may arise if the statutory ingredients are otherwise satisfied. It further observed that even assuming the relationship is not legally valid, the nature and substance of the relationship, rather than its formal legality, is determinative for invoking Section 498A. It emphasised that a woman cannot be left remedediess merely because the man had concealed a subsisting marriage and later seeks to take advantage of that illegality to escape prosecution.
Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M. Nuli appeared for the petitioners. The Bench impleaded the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice as a party respondent, noting the importance of the issue. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the Union. The Court also appointed Ms. Nina R. Nariman as amicus curiae to assist in the matter and directed that she be supplied with the complete digital paper book.
Notice has been issued to the respondents, and the Union has been granted time to file a counter affidavit. The Court has directed that counter and rejoinder affidavits be filed before the next date of listing. Significantly, the Bench has ordered a stay of all further proceedings in the case pending consideration of the legal issue.
The matter is scheduled to be heard next on March 9, 2026. The outcome is expected to have wide ramifications for the interpretation of cruelty provisions under both the IPC and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, especially in the context of evolving judicial recognition of live-in relationships.
Case Details:
Case Title: Lokesh B.H. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another
Petition(s): SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2240–2241 of 2026
Arising out of: Judgment dated November 18, 2025 in CRP Nos. 8134/2024 and 9412/2024 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Date of Order: February 13, 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Mr. Ashritsai Torgal, M/s Nuli & Nuli, AOR
For Respondents: Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR; Ms. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Mr. Payal Gola, Advocates; Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG; Ms. Shreya Jain and Ms. Khushboo, Advocates
Amicus Curiae: Ms. Nina R. Nariman (pro bono)
