The Supreme Court of India has rendered a significant ruling concerning the application of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to live-in relationships. On Monday, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh concluded that a man involved in a live-in relationship can face prosecution for cruelty if the relationship mirrors the institution of marriage and there is an intent to wed. This landmark decision emerged from the case Lokesh v. State of Karnataka.
The Court’s decision underscores that Section 498A can be pertinent to live-in relationships that possess the characteristics of a marital union, provided there is a demonstrated intention to marry. The Justices emphasized that not all live-in relationships fall under this provision, placing the initial burden of proof on the woman to establish the couple’s intent to marry.
This ruling came in the context of an appeal by Dr. Lokesh BH and others against a previous judgment by the Karnataka High Court. The High Court had upheld criminal proceedings against them following allegations from a woman claiming that Lokesh married her while still being legally married to another woman. She accused him and his family of dowry harassment, cruelty, and attempted murder.
Dr. Lokesh contended that the supposed second marriage was void, arguing that this void status precluded him from being considered the woman’s husband under Section 498A. However, the High Court rejected this argument, and the Supreme Court upheld the broader interpretation, noting that the provision could apply to void or voidable marriages and live-in relationships resembling marriage.
The Justices noted that Section 498A was designed to prevent abusive conduct by husbands and their families. It aims to promote gender equality and move beyond outdated notions of male dominance. The Court highlighted that societal progress necessitates legal adaptations, arguing that distinguishing between married women and those in marriage-like relationships lacks rationality and violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
More Read
Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed the argument that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, already provides sufficient protection for women in live-in relationships. The Justices pointed out that while the Domestic Violence Act offers broader civil remedies, Section 498A enforces criminal penalties, which carry a higher threshold.
The Bench made it clear that this interpretation pertains solely to Section 498A and does not automatically influence other penal code provisions. Furthermore, it mandated strict adherence to the procedural safeguards against arrest as outlined in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. Arrests in such cases require a preliminary inquiry to avoid undue harassment.
On reviewing the facts, the Court deemed it inappropriate to quash the prosecution of Dr. Lokesh and others, thereby dismissing the appeal. Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli represented the petitioners, supported by Advocates Ashritsai Torgal and Shiva Swaroop. The respondents’ legal team included Advocates Naveen Sharma, Swati Bhushan Sharma, and others. Additional Solicitors General Brijendra Chahar and Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the respondents, along with several advocates.
More Read
Advocate Nina Nariman served as amicus curiae, assisted by Advocates Svarit Uniyal Mishra and Paduja Mishra.
