Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka

Facts

The complainant (respondent no. 2) alleged that she and the appellant were married by Hindu rites in 2010, that he had suppressed an earlier marriage, and that he and his family harassed her for dowry and caused her burn injuries. Two charge-sheets were filed, including under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellant denied any marriage and argued that Section 498A needs a valid marriage. The High Court of Karnataka refused to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, holding that "husband" covers a man in a void or voidable marriage and a live-in relationship bearing the attributes of marriage. The appellant appealed. The Union of India supported the appellant; amicus curiae supported applying Section 498A to relationships in the nature of marriage.

Questions before the Court

1. Can a man in a live-in relationship be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC, that is, does "husband" extend beyond a man in a valid marriage?
2. Does the civil remedy under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 make Section 498A protection unnecessary for women in relationships in the nature of marriage?
3. Should the criminal proceedings against the appellant be quashed?

What the Court held

• A woman in a relationship in the nature of marriage is protected by Section 498A. The word "husband" is given a purposive interpretation, in view of the reformative, corrective and socially beneficial intent of the Section.
• Only live-in relationships between two consenting adults that qualify as relationships in the nature of marriage, with the intent to marry established as an intrinsic part, are covered. The initial burden of proving that intent lies on the woman seeking protection, and a higher standard of proof applies than under the DV Act.
• Distinguishing married women from women in relationships in the nature of marriage, for protection against cruelty under Section 498A, has no rational nexus with the object of preventing domestic violence and offends Article 14.
• The argument that the DV Act gives adequate protection was rejected, since it is essentially civil in nature, with Section 31 as the only penal provision.
• The extended reading is limited to Section 498A IPC and affects no other provision. Arnesh Kumar safeguards must be strictly applied, and no accused live-in partner or his relative shall be arrested without preliminary enquiries.
• On the facts, the allegations taken at face value disclosed an offence, so the proceedings were not quashed; the appeals were disposed of without comment on the merits.

Why it matters

The Court extends Section 498A IPC to relationships in the nature of marriage, reading "husband" purposively and holding the married and live-in distinction offensive to Article 14 for this purpose. It sets limits: consenting adults, a relationship in the nature of marriage with proved intent to marry, the burden on the woman, application to Section 498A alone, and strict Arnesh Kumar safeguards with preliminary enquiry before arrest. It treats Shivcharan Lal Verma as decided on its facts and prefers Reema Aggarwal's purposive reading.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

Provisions interpreted

• Section 498A, Indian Penal CodeNow: BNS 85, BNS 86 (NCRB correspondence table)
• Article 14, Constitution
• Section 2(f), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
• Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 528 (NCRB correspondence table)

Related judgments

• Follows Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)“The safeguards against arrest and other factors as laid down in Arnesh Kumar supra shall be strictly applied” (page 76)

Case and bench

Parties

Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka

Case

Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2240-2241 of 2026)

Decided

3 August 2026

Bench

Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Opinions

Unanimous. Judgment delivered by Sanjay Karol, J.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

1. Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026

   In Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka, decided on 3 August 2026, the Supreme Court considered whether a man in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It held that Section 498A applies to a live-in relationship:

   1. A. only where the parties have cohabited for at least three years and a child has been born of the relationship
   2. B. only after the woman has first obtained a protection order against the man under the Domestic Violence Act
   3. C. of any duration between two adults, whether or not the parties ever intended to turn it into a marriage
   4. D. that qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage, with an intent to marry established
   Show the answer

   D. that qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage, with an intent to marry established

   In 2026 INSC 784 (Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.) the Court gave the word 'husband' in Section 498A IPC a purposive reading and held it applicable to live-in relationships that qualify as relationships in the nature of marriage, with the intent to marry established as an intrinsic part. It laid down no minimum period, no child requirement and no prior Domestic Violence Act order. Section 85 of the BNS now deals with cruelty by a husband or his relative.

2. Question 2, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026

   With reference to the conclusions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (3 August 2026), consider the following statements: 1. The live-in relationships protected by Section 498A IPC are those between two consenting adult individuals. 2. The extended meaning given to the word 'husband' applies equally to every other provision of the Indian Penal Code that refers to a husband. 3. The initial burden of proving the intent to marry lies on the female partner who seeks the protection of the provision. 4. No partner in a relationship in the nature of marriage accused of cruelty is to be arrested without preliminary enquiries, and the Arnesh Kumar safeguards apply strictly. Which of the statements given above are correct?

   1. A. 1, 2, 3 and 4
   2. B. 1, 3 and 4 only
   3. C. 2, 3 and 4 only
   4. D. 1 and 2 only
   Show the answer

   B. 1, 3 and 4 only

   The Court confined its extended reading to Section 498A IPC alone and said it would not affect any other provision, so statement 2 is wrong. It limited protection to relationships between consenting adults, placed the initial burden of proving the intent to marry on the female partner, and directed strict application of the Arnesh Kumar safeguards with no arrest without preliminary enquiries (2026 INSC 784, paras 21 and 23).