Lokesh B.H and others v. State of Karnataka, 2026
The Supreme Court recognized a novel legal issue regarding live-in relationships and cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
16 February 2026
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
Petitioners challenged a November 18, 2025 judgment of the Karnataka High Court holding that Section 498A IPC applies to live-in relationships resembling marriage.
-
Complaint alleged that the respondent man harassed the woman and attempted to burn her in dowry demand, despite having a subsisting earlier marriage.
-
Petitioners argued that Section 498A IPC cannot apply to void marriages or relationships not legally valid.
-
The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding that the nature and substance of the relationship, rather than its formal legality, determines applicability.
-
High Court observed that where parties cohabit as husband and wife, criminal liability for cruelty arises if statutory ingredients of Section 498A are satisfied.
-
The Supreme Court impleaded the Union of India as a respondent and appointed Amicus Curiae Nina R. Nariman to assist.
-
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati was directed to assist on behalf of the Union.
-
The Court stayed further proceedings pending consideration of the legal issue.
Issues
-
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 IPC or Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
-
Whether the expression “husband” under Section 498A IPC should be interpreted narrowly to exclude relationships that are void, voidable, or not legally registered?
-
Whether criminal liability for cruelty arises if the parties present themselves as husband and wife, even if the legal marriage is void or one party has a subsisting prior marriage?
-
Whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quash proceedings based on the prima facie allegations of cruelty in a relationship in the nature of marriage?
Held
-
High Court’s proceedings are not quashed; prima facie allegations require trial.
-
Interpretation of “husband” and Section 498A in live-in relationships is pending final Supreme Court determination.
Analysis
-
The Supreme Court recognized a novel legal issue regarding live-in relationships and cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
-
The case emphasizes substance over form, i.e., the practical reality of cohabitation versus formal legality of marriage.
-
Highlights the Court’s intent to protect women from cruelty, even where legal technicalities could be used to evade liability.
-
Appointment of amicus curiae and Union participation shows the importance of policy and statutory interpretation in modern contexts.
-
Interim stay balances right to trial with protection of parties and ensures careful legal examination before final judgment.