Why In News?

The Supreme Court, in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Anr. (2026 INSC 784), held that cruelty protection under Section 498A of the IPC can extend to a woman in a live-in relationship "in the nature of marriage" where there is a demonstrable intent to marry.

What is Section 498A (IPC) / Section 85 (BNS)?

  • Section 498A provided protection against cruelty to women, historically under the Indian Penal Code.

  • It penalises cruelty committed by a husband or relative of the husband.

  • It prescribes punishment for cruelty, covering both physical and mental harassment, including that linked to dowry demands.

  • Its corresponding, near-identical provision under the new criminal law framework is Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, with Section 86 of the BNS separately defining "cruelty".

What is a Live-in Relationship?

  • A live-in relationship refers to a relationship without formal (legal) marriage.

  • It typically involves partners sharing a household on a continuous basis.

  • It functions as a form of domestic partnership, involving mutual commitment without statutory registration.

  • Courts distinguish a casual live-in arrangement from a "relationship in the nature of marriage" — the latter being the qualifying threshold for legal protections, requiring elements like long-term cohabitation, shared finances, and social recognition as a couple.

Current Legal Position

  • The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has replaced the IPC, effective from 1 July 2024.

  • Section 85 of the BNS is the direct, in pari materia re-enactment of Section 498A IPC, containing identical statutory ingredients.

  • The Supreme Court's 2026 ruling concerned Section 498A of the IPC, not Section 85 of the BNS, because the underlying FIRs were registered in 2016, well before the BNS came into force — and under Article 20(1) of the Constitution, substantive penal liability is governed by the law in force at the time the offence was allegedly committed.

  • Because Section 85 BNS reproduces Section 498A almost word for word, legal commentators widely expect the same interpretation to apply to Section 85 prosecutions, but the Supreme Court's judgment itself does not directly rule on Section 85 BNS — this remains a matter of interpretation, not settled precedent, until a case squarely under the BNS reaches the Court.

Supreme Court Extended Protection

The court ruled that the term "husband" in Section 498A is not strictly confined to a legally wedded spouse, but extends to a male partner in a relationship in the nature of marriage where there is a clear, mutual intent to marry.

The Court recognised changing social realities, acknowledging live-in relationships as an established, if still evolving, social phenomenon requiring legal attention.

It sought to strengthen protection against domestic cruelty, regardless of the formal legal status of the relationship.

It advanced principles of gender justice, ensuring women are not denied protection merely due to the absence of a marriage certificate.

It reinforced the right to dignity, treating cruelty as a harm independent of marital status.

It aimed at the protection of vulnerable women, who may face abuse in long-term relationships without the formal safeguards marriage provides.

The Court limited the scope of its ruling, observing that: "The proposition of law as laid down shall be limited to Section 498A IPC only, and this extended interpretation shall not affect any other provision" — a deliberate judicial restraint against overextending a criminal provision through interpretation.

The Court also underscored that not every live-in relationship would qualify — only those genuinely "in the nature of marriage" with demonstrable intent to marry meet the threshold, and the judgment did not specify concrete parameters for establishing this intent, leaving courts to assess it case by case.

The Court also directed that the arrest safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar vS State of Bihar must be rigorously observed before any arrest is made in such cases, guarding against misuse.

Existing Legal Protections for Live-in Relationships

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) already expressly recognises relationships beyond formal marriage, covering "relationships in the nature of marriage".

  • It provides protection against domestic abuse, both physical and mental.

  • It grants a right to residence in the shared household, in certain circumstances.

  • It offers maintenance-related protection for women in qualifying relationships.

  • It extends to the protection of children born within such relationships.

The PWDVA is a civil law remedy, distinct from the criminal law protection now extended through Section 498A/Section 85.

Conclusion

The ruling closes a real protection gap for women in marriage-like live-in relationships, but its actual reach — including whether it extends to Section 85 of the BNS — remains legally unsettled, making this a space to watch for further judicial clarification.

Source: THEHINDU

PRACTICE QUESTION

Q. The Supreme Court has extended cruelty protection under Section 498A IPC to live-in relationships "in the nature of marriage." Discuss the constitutional and social justifications for this extension, along with the challenges in its implementation. (250 words)