The Supreme Court has held that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can apply to live-in relationships that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage.”
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh has observed that a woman in a live-in relationship cannot be denied the protection of the anti-cruelty provision merely because the parties were not legally married, provided the relationship possesses the essential characteristics of marriage.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether a man in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC, which penalizes cruelty by a “husband” or his relatives against a woman. The appellants argued that the provision applies only where there is a legally valid marriage, whereas the complainant and the State contended that the expression “husband” should receive a purposive interpretation to protect women in marriage-like relationships.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The litigation arose out of complaints filed by a woman alleging that the accused had represented himself as her husband, concealed his earlier marriage and subjected her to cruelty, dowry-related harassment and physical violence. Two criminal cases were registered, resulting in charge sheets invoking Section 498A IPC along with other penal provisions and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The accused approached the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, contending that there had never been a legally valid marriage between the parties. The High Court rejected the plea, holding that Section 498A could extend to relationships bearing the characteristics of marriage. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court undertook an extensive examination of the principles governing statutory interpretation, particularly the balance between strict interpretation of penal statutes and purposive construction of welfare legislation.
The Court observed that although penal statutes ordinarily receive strict interpretation, such interpretation cannot be so rigid that it defeats the legislative objective. It emphasized that courts must ascertain the true legislative intent and adopt an interpretation that suppresses the mischief sought to be remedied while advancing the statutory purpose.
The Bench noted that Section 498A was introduced through the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 to combat cruelty against women within domestic relationships and address the growing menace of dowry-related abuse.
After examining earlier precedents, including Reema Aggarwal, Rajinder Singh and other decisions, the Court held that limiting Section 498A exclusively to legally valid marriages would frustrate the very object of the legislation.
Recognising changing social realities, the Court observed that live-in relationships have increasingly become a feature of contemporary society and that cruelty inflicted within such domestic arrangements can be equally devastating. It stated that the protection afforded by criminal law should not depend solely upon the formal legal status of the relationship.
Accordingly, the Bench held that a woman in a “relationship in the nature of marriage” is entitled to invoke Section 498A IPC, with the expression “husband” receiving a purposive interpretation consistent with the reformative and socially beneficial intent of the provision.
The Court also rejected the contention that women in live-in relationships are adequately protected by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
It observed that while the Domestic Violence Act provides broad civil remedies, its primary nature is civil and monetary, except for limited penal consequences relating to breach of protection orders. Therefore, availability of remedies under the Domestic Violence Act cannot justify denying criminal protection under Section 498A where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
At the same time, the Supreme Court acknowledged concerns regarding misuse of Section 498A.
The Bench directed that the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar must be applied rigorously. It emphasized that persons accused in qualifying live-in relationship cases should not be arrested without preliminary inquiry and strict adherence to the safeguards governing arrest, thereby balancing the protection of women with safeguards against arbitrary criminal prosecution.
The Court clarified that its interpretation is confined exclusively to Section 498A IPC and does not automatically extend to other statutory provisions where the expressions “husband” or “wife” occur.
The judgment further makes it clear that the protection is available only to live-in relationships between consenting adults that qualify as relationships in the nature of marriage, and not to every live-in arrangement.
Applying these principles to the facts before it, the Supreme Court found that the allegations—if accepted at face value—prima facie disclosed offences requiring trial. Since the complainant alleged suppression of the accused’s earlier marriage, dowry harassment and physical cruelty, the Court held that this was not a fit case for exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
The Court therefore permitted the trial to proceed in accordance with law while clarifying that its observations were confined to deciding the quashing petitions and should not influence the merits of the criminal trial.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: CESTAT Denies Interest on Pre-2014 Excise Pre-Deposit Refunded Within Three Months
