The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated 03rd August 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 3647-3648 of 2026 titled as Dr Lokesh B.H. and Others Versus State of Karnataka and Another [2026 SCC OnLine SC 1470] permitted the trial to proceed in accordance with law against the Petitioner/Appellant and upheld the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, refusing to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS.
Issue
Whether a man who is in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted under Section 498A of the Penal Code, 1860?
Brief Facts
The appellant filed the Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, against the Judgment dated 18th November 2025 passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 8134 of 2024 and 9412 of 2021 whereby the Hon’ble High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS. The appellant sought quashing of two criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2, under Section 482 CrPC corresponding to Section 528 BNSS before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. The allegation in the FIR is that the appellant had suppressed the factum of his prior marriage, he, along with his family members, had harassed respondent no. 2 for dowry and also caused physical injury to her, because of which she received burns on her leg. The High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings and on being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
To clarify, Section 498A IPC, 1860 is corresponding to Section 85 and Section 86 in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The same are reproduced as under:
Section 498A of Penal Code 1860 (Repealed)
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - 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.
Explanation.
-For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means-
Section 85 and 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
85. 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.
86. For the purposes of section 85, “cruelty” means-
For better understanding, we need to go to the inception of 498A of Penal Code, 1860. Section 498A was introduced through the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. The statement of objects and reasons of which, is as under:
“The increasing number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the working of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cases of cruelty by the husband and relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving such cruelty. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by their in-laws.”
Decision
The Hon’ble Supreme Court decided that Section 498A IPC to be applicable to “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof. The Hon’ble Court clarified that the “live-in relationships” protected by Section 498A, are those that are between two consenting adult individuals. Also, the proposition of law laid down through this decision shall be limited to Section 498A IPC only, and this extended interpretation shall not affect any other provision. The Hon’ble Court also observed that the safeguards against arrest and other factors as laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 shall be strictly applied and no person in a relationship in the nature of marriage having been accused of committing cruelty against a woman, being either the live-in partner “in the nature of marriage” or his relative, shall be arrested without preliminary enquiries.
Critique
It appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court through this socially progressive judgment has crossed or blurred the line between the interpretation and legislation. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, does not employ broader expression as interpretated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through this decision. Section 498A was incorporated to address cruelty to married women by their husband and/or relatives of the husband. The Hon’ble Supreme Court enlarged the class of persons exposed to the criminal liability of Section 498A IPC, the boundaries of “husband” are stretched to include a man in a “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof. This decision steps beyond the judicial interpretation, and enters into domain of judicial legislation/judicial overreach.
There exist multiple instances whereby the well intentioned provision Section 498A has caused considerable hardship, since it is misused. The said provision is employed as a means of settling scores and ventilating grievances. In regard to the Misuse of Section 498A, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its decisions in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, (2025) 3 SCC 686, Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2025) 3 SCC 756, Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094 and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
The relevant para of the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar is reproduced as under:
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for the offence under Section 498A IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under the Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different Sections of the Penal Code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.”
Lastly, the intention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is bona fide, but there are certain impracticalities such as additional requirement of “intention to marry”, which is difficult to define, and establish with the certainty. The right approach would have been to recognize the constitutional and social deficiency in the existing framework while leaving the Legislature to determine whether Section 498A IPC [Corresponding to Section 85 and 86 of BNSS] should expressly extend to the partners in live in relationships/marriage like relationships. Post that, the Judicial interpretation could have been exercised to advance the safeguards or evidentiary benchmarks necessary, if required.
Conclusion
It is not disputed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr Lokesh B.H. and Others Versus State of Karnataka and Another represents a significant and socially progressive development in the law. The underlying objective of the judgment is undoubtedly bona fide: the absence of a formal marriage should not deprive a woman in a “relationship in the nature of marriage” wherein the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof, of effective legal protection against cruelty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also attempted to balance the equities by introducing the requirement of intention to marry and by directing strict compliance with the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
However, the practical implication of these conditions and safeguards remain a matter of concern. The substantial expansion of class of persons exposed to the criminal liability under Section 498A raises important concerns regarding the limit of judicial interpretation. The central statutory expression under Section 498A was “husband”, following this judgment, that expression has been extended to encompass a man in qualifying live in relationship. There has been continues misuse of the said provision and the same is duly noted by the Hon’ble Court on various occasions, but this expansion of class of persons under the said provision is somewhere unjust and has unlocked another occasion vulnerable to misuse at a greater extent.
By - C. George Thomas and Dhananjay Kataria
Top