Does the word "husband" in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reach a man who never formally married the woman he lived with? In Dr Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 INSC 784, decided on 3 August 2026, the Supreme Court answered that it can: Section 498A applies to a live-in relationship between consenting adults which is in the nature of marriage. The Court refused to quash cruelty proceedings where the accused disputed the very existence of the marriage, while simultaneously directing strict adherence to the arrest safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
The Background
The complainant alleged that she and the first accused had entered into a customary Hindu marriage, followed by cohabitation, and that she was thereafter subjected to cruelty and harassment, including demands connected with dowry. The accused denied that any valid marriage had taken place and sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 498A IPC and connected provisions, contending that the section protects only a legally wedded wife. The Karnataka High Court refused to quash, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the challenge on 3 August 2026, upholding the refusal to quash and settling the broader question of law.
What the Supreme Court Held
Purposive, not literal
Section 498A was enacted to protect women from cruelty in the matrimonial setting. To hold that identical harassment is punishable after a wedding ceremony but beyond the law's reach without one would, in the Court's view, be an oversimplification that defeats the provision's object.
Marriage-like relationships covered
The expression "husband" takes in a man in a live-in relationship which is in the nature of marriage between consenting adults, the Court treating a genuine intention to marry as an intrinsic element of such a relationship.
Equality reinforced the reading
The Court asked why the protection given to a woman should differ according to whether the cruelty comes from a husband or from a partner in a marriage-like union, and found no rational basis for the distinction, drawing on Article 14 principles.
Confined to Section 498A
The extension is limited to Section 498A IPC. It does not automatically enlarge the meaning of "husband" in other penal provisions, and quashing was refused on the prima facie allegations, leaving all defences open at trial.
When Is a Live-In Relationship "In the Nature of Marriage"?
The Court applied the framework long associated with Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, under which courts weigh indicia such as these:
| Factor | What the court looks at |
|---|---|
| Duration and household | A reasonable period of cohabitation in a shared household, not a casual or transient association |
| Pooling of resources | Joint finances, shared expenses, acquisition of assets in joint names |
| Domestic arrangements | Division of household responsibilities in the manner of a marital home |
| Children | Having or raising children, a strong indicator of a marriage-like union |
| Public conduct | Holding out to society as akin to spouses |
| Intention and conduct | The parties' common understanding of what the relationship is, including an intention to marry |
The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 already protects women in relationships "in the nature of marriage" through civil remedies — residence orders, protection orders and monetary relief. What this judgment does is carry a comparable understanding into the penal provision, while insisting that the criminal law's reach remains the narrower of the two: only relationships closest to marriage itself qualify.
The Safeguards That Travel With the Extension
The Court was conscious that Section 498A has a documented history of misuse, and it declined to let the extension become a fresh source of it. It reiterated that the directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 — the checklist under Section 41 CrPC, notice of appearance in place of routine arrest, and recorded reasons subjected to magisterial scrutiny — must be complied with rigorously, and with particular care where the foundational relationship is itself contested.
What This Means in Practice
For complainants, the judgment removes a threshold objection that has defeated prosecutions where the marriage ceremony was disputed or imperfectly proved: the absence of a formal marriage is no longer, by itself, an answer to a charge of cruelty where the relationship bore the character of a marriage. For the defence, the decision defines the battleground with equal clarity. The character of the relationship is now a fact in issue: its duration, exclusivity, financial arrangements and public face all become material, and a relationship that fails the "nature of marriage" test remains outside Section 498A altogether. Under the new code, the same contest will play out under Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does every live-in relationship now attract Section 498A?
No. The Court was explicit that not all live-in relationships amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage. The relationship must bear the character of marriage between consenting adults — assessed on factors such as duration, a shared household, pooling of resources, domestic arrangements, children, and the parties holding themselves out publicly as spouses — and the Court treated an intention to marry as an intrinsic element.
Does this interpretation extend to other offences that use the word "husband"?
The Court confined its holding to Section 498A IPC. It expressly clarified that the extended reading does not automatically travel to other penal provisions. Each statute would have to be construed on its own terms and purpose.
What protection remains against misuse of Section 498A in such cases?
The Court coupled the extension with a direction that the safeguards in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) be applied rigorously: no mechanical arrest, compliance with the notice and recorded-reasons regime for offences of this class, and judicial scrutiny of the necessity of arrest. These apply with particular care where the relationship itself is in dispute.
What is the equivalent provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Cruelty by a husband or his relatives is now punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the definition carried in Section 86. The reasoning of this judgment on the reach of the expression "husband" will be equally relevant to prosecutions under the new code.