Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
EXPANSION OF MATRIMONIAL CRUELTY JURISPRUDENCE TO LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS: A LEGAL AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DR. LOKESH B.H. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
EXPANSION
OF MATRIMONIAL CRUELTY JURISPRUDENCE TO LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS: A LEGAL AND
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DR. LOKESH B.H. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AUTHORED
BY - AMRITA PANDEY
ABSTRACT
In
the landmark judgment of Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
& Anr[1] the Supreme
Court of India liberally expanded the horizon of gender-protective criminal
jurisprudence of Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Division Bench ruled
that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 85 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) would also be applicable to women in live-in
relationships. These live in relationships should qualify as
"relationships in the nature of marriage” which depict the intrinsic
intention to marry the person in cohabitation.
This
paper presents an elaborate analysis of this decision. It will be covering its
historical background, factual matrix, legal principles, critical legal
evaluation and broader societal implications.
Keywords-
Section
498A, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Live-in-Relationships, strict construction v.
strict literalism, judicial ring fencing.
1. Statutory
Dilemma & Historical Antecedents:
Section 498A (now Section
85 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023) was inserted into the IPC through The Criminal
Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It was introduced to specifically combat the
social evil of dowry deaths, dowry harassment, marital torture and domestic
cruelty and bride burning. The section said that “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband
of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
The term ‘husband’ was given a strict interpretation, to
mean, a male who entered into a formal, legally recognized marriage under
applicable personal laws (such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Special
Marriage Act, 1954) or civil marriage statutes. The provision was
strictly tied to formal marital status. The Penal statutes are generally given
strict construction i.e. nulla poena ine lege. Courts consistently
interpreted the word ‘husband’ to mean a man lawfully wedded to a woman through
recognized religious rituals or civil registration under statutory law.
With shifting societal norms and changing mindset in the
society, live in relationship became choice of many young individuals. Two
individuals would live together without marriage choosing this over the
traditional concept of marriage. But again, these relationships came under scrutiny
when one partner would exploit the other and abandon the relation. Thus, the Parliament
brought Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005. This section granted civil remedies like protection orders, residence
rights, maintenance even to women living in non-marital cohabitation. This
Section introduced the statutory concept of a ‘domestic relationship’, which
explicitly includes two persons living together in a ‘relationship in the
nature of marriage’.
Women in non-formalized
or cohabiting arrangements could seek civil remedies under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or maintenance under Section 125 Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023)[2].
But the women cohabiting in live in relationship were denied criminal remedies
against penal cruelty. This created a jurisdictional gap. While on one hand, the women cohabitating in live in
relationships could avail the remedies under civil law through the Protection
of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and on the other hand under the criminal
law, Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 remained tethered to the formal legal
definition of ‘husband’. This created a critical legal loophole. A man could
live with a woman as her de facto husband, demand dowry, inflict severe
physical violence, and subsequently avoid criminal prosecution under Section
498A by alleging that their relationship lacked formal legal solemnization or
was void due to a pre-existing marriage. This lacuna allowed
abusive male partners in long-term cohabitations to evade criminal prosecution
under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 by simply raising technical
objections regarding the validity or solemnization of the marriage ceremony.
2. Factual
Background and Procedural Trajectory:
This case originated from
criminal proceedings that were initiated by Smt. Theertha (Respondent No. 2)
against Dr. Lokesh B.H. (the appellant) who is a medical practitioner, and his
family members.
The allegation that the
complainant asserted were that after entering into a marital-like setup that involved
long-term cohabitation, mutual representation to society, and a shared
intention and promise to marry, the respondent no. 2 was subjected to physical
violence, mental torture, and monetary dowry demands. She further alleged that
Dr. Lokesh had concealed his prior marriage while cohabiting with her as
husband and wife.
Dr.
Lokesh in his defence moved to the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to quash the FIR and charge sheet filed against
him under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. 1860. He contended that since there
was no valid and legally binding marriage that existed between him and the
Respondent, he could not be categorized as a "husband" under Section
498A Indian Penal Code.
The
High Court in its verdict rejected the quashing petition. It adopted a
purposive interpretation and held that a man cannot induce a woman into a
marital cohabitation and subsequently plead the invalidity of the marriage so
as to escape criminal cruelty charges.
Then
Dr. Lokesh B.H. approached the Supreme Court. The appellant stated in
front of the Supreme Court that penal statutes must be given a strict
construction. For a man to fall within the category of husband, he should be
legally and validly married to a woman. That if the court gave a judicial
expansion of the penal terms than it would be violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. By giving it a liberal interpretation the court would be
creating a retroactive criminal liability. He even stated that the woman
cohabitating in live in relationship requires to take protection under the
civil remedies available to her as given by The Protection of Women against
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Supreme
Court dismissed this appeal. It upheld the Karnataka High Court's order and further
confirmed the maintainability of Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 prosecutions
in case where qualified live-in relationships could be established.
i.
Strict Construction v Strict
Liberalism-
The
Supreme Court in this judgement stated about the Purposive Interpretation of
Welfare Penal Laws. The Supreme Court held that while penal statutes generally
demand strict interpretation, social welfare provisions that have been inserted
to combat the domestic cruelty must be interpreted purposively. The Supreme Court clarified that “strict construction
of penal statutes does not mean blind literalism that generates absurd results
or undermines statutory objectives. Where literal reading enables a perpetrator
to evade prosecution by exploiting a legal flaw in the relationship, courts
must apply a purposive interpretation. A man who assumes the role and
responsibilities of a husband cannot disavow that status when faced with
charges of domestic abuse”. It went on to say that mechanical
literalism that would permit an abuser to benefit from their own deception or
technical defects in marriage rituals will just end up defeating the underlying
legislative intent. With this explanation the court
put an end to the deception loophole.
ii.
Constitutional Equality Under Article
14-
The
Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay
Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh also evaluated
the distinction between a legally wedded wife and a live-in partner facing
domestic abuse under Article 14 of the Constitution:
"Cruelty,
any which way, does not check at the door, whether the house it enters is that
of a married woman or not. Once it enters, its propensity to destroy is
aggravated."
The
Court ruled that creating an artificial distinction between a formally wedded
wife and a woman in a marriage-like relationship when addressing physical or
psychological cruelty lacks an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus
to the law's protective goal.
iii.
Inadequacy of Solely Civil
Protections-
The
Court also went on to reject the argument that civil remedies under the
Protection of Woman against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were sufficient for
partners living in live in relationship. Civil remedies such as restraint
orders, residence right and criminal penalties serve distinct societal
functions. Reserving criminal deterrence strictly for formally married women
was held to be a ‘misstatement of law’.
iv.
Threshold Framework and Essential
Criteria-
The
Supreme Court further elaborated certain guidelines to be considered under so
as to prevent arbitrary applications on these grounds. The Supreme Court
outlined indicators required for a live in relationship to fall within the
scope of Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860-
a) Relationship
in the Nature of Marriage: The Supreme Court laid down that
there should be a clear mutual
intention to marry which must form an intrinsic, foundational element of the
relationship. Casual or transient cohabitation would be excluded
from this Section. The Supreme Court reiterated the framework laid by it in the
D. Veluswamy v. D. Patchaiammal[3]
The union must show durability, shared household, domesticity, and present
themselves as a couple to society.
b) Intrinsic
Intention to Marry: The existence of a mutual understanding
or intent to marry must form a core foundation of the cohabitation.
c) Consenting
Adults: The arrangement must involve consenting adult
individuals.
d)
Judicial Ring Fencing: To prevent unintended consequences in other legal domain
laws, the Supreme Court explicitly limited the scope of its interpretation. “The
extended meaning attributed to 'husband' for purposes of Section 498A IPC
cannot automatically be imported into other provisions of the IPC or other
statutory enactments. The proposition of law is expressly limited to Section
498A Indian Penal Code, 1860.”
This ring-fencing will ensure that the expansion provided
to the meaning of Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not automatically
alter other rights under various other laws like- property rights, inheritance
laws, or statutory definitions under other codes.
e)
Procedural
Safeguards Against Misuse: The
Supreme Court also Recognized that
this expansive interpretation could lead to frivolous or vexatious litigation,
and thus, established mandatory procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary
arrests in live-in relationship disputes. Firstly, it iterated that the trial
court must verify that the complaint establishes prima facie initial evidence
showing a qualifying relationship that existed along with an underlying intent
or promise to marry. Secondly, the police officers cannot make automatic or
routine arrests of a live-in partner or his relatives upon registration of an
FIR under Section 498A Indian Penal Code 1860. There has to be a preliminary
inquiry before any such arrest. Thirdly, investigations must strictly comply
with guidelines laid down by this court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar[4].
The court stated clearly that the arrests should be exceptional, preceded by
formal notices under CrPC[5]
(now BNSS[6]).
4.
Critical Legal Vulnerabilities and
Concerns:
The judgment in Dr.
Lokesh B.H. v State of Karnataka marks a progressive step in gender
jurisprudence. Despite its constitutional merit, there are several legal,
operational, and structural challenges that are present:
i.
Doctrinal Strain: Penal Strict
Construction vs. Judicial Expansion-
A
fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence ‘The Principle of Legality’ (Nulla
Poena Sine Lege). This principle states that penal statutes must be
construed strictly. An individual should have clear notice of what constitutes
a crime. By extending the definition of “husband” to include unmarried live-in
partners has blurred the boundary between judicial interpretation and judicial
legislation. This could become the slippery slope in criminal law. Purposive
construction is beneficial for social welfare statutes. But applying them to
expand the definitions to penal offenses risks introducing vagueness into
criminal trials, where personal liberty is directly at stake.
The
expansion of a defined penal term
like ‘husband’, which acquired a legal status traditionally requiring statutory
or customary marriage, stretches judicial interpretation into the realm of
judicial legislation.
ii.
The Ambiguity of ‘Intention to Marry’-
The Court in this judgement mandates that Section 498A Indian
Penal Code 1860 applies only where there is an established ‘intention to marry’.
In practice, proving a subjective, unwritten mental state in non-formalized
setups is inherently difficult. The ‘intention to marry’ has been made a
crucial filter, even though it an internal state of mind or just verbal
assurance given over the years in a relationship.
The court has nowhere given directions as to what would
be the level of documentation or oral testimony to establish the state of mind
that establishes the intention of marriage. It just puts an unnecessary
additional burden on trial courts to put time and effort to distinguish between
a badly ended romantic commitment and a relationship in the nature of marriage
at the pre-trial or quashing stage. This ambiguity risks making preliminary
investigations prolonged and subjective. The courts will have to evaluate
digital records, testimonies, and social behaviours to determine whether an
arrangement was a ‘live-in with intention to marry’ or a ‘casual dating
arrangement’. This requirement will lead to a mini trial at the quashing stage.
iii.
The
burden on in-laws and relatives-
Section
498A Indian Penal Code 1860 penalizes both the ‘husband’ and the ‘relative of
the husband’. Application of this provision to live-in relationships creates
legal exposure for family members of live-in partners. It remains unclear how
family members who never formally accepted and recognized an informal live-in
relationship or were unaware of the existence of such relationship can be held
criminally responsible as ‘relatives’ of a de facto husband. This kind of
interpretation could become a source for harassment of the family members who
obviously were oblivious of any such relation.
iv.
Impact
on Trial Courts and Policing-
The Supreme Court mandated preliminary inquiries and
strict compliance as per the Arnesh Kumar[7]
guidelines before arrest to limit the potential misuse. However, transferring
these requirements to ground-level for implementation introduces another set of
challenges- Firstly, discretion at the Police Station Level. The Station House
Officers (SHOs) will now judge whether a live-in arrangement qualifies as a ‘relationship
in the nature of marriage’ before filing charges. This provides the
investigative officers with significant discretionary power. Secondly, this also
impact the petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The High
Courts may now hesitate to quash a FIR registered under Section 498A Indian
Penal Code, 1860 involving live-in partners leading to the evaluation of ‘intent
to marry’ to full-scale trials. This could increase pre-trial litigation for
accused individuals seeking early discharge.
The
Supreme Court gave the definition of ‘husband’ under 498A Indian Penal Code,
1860 a judicial ring fencing i.e. just selective legal recognition. The Court
explicitly isolated this ruling, stating that the expansion given to the term
‘husband’ applies only to Section 498A Indian Penal Code 1860/ Section 85
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and it does not grant the partner rights of
inheritance, civil status, or succession under personal laws. This creates a
legal paradox where a man can be prosecuted as a ‘husband’ for the purpose of
criminal punishment, but still the woman may not enjoy the corresponding civil
rights of a ‘wife’ under other personal law statutes like succession and
property.
5.
Conclusion:
The ruling in Dr.
Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka[8] reflects the
judiciary's recognition of changing social structures in urban India. The court
through this order has covered the live-in-relationship in the blanket of criminal
protection against domestic abuse and dismantled the requirement of a formal
legal marriage. The Supreme Court prioritized substantive protection over
formal technicalities. The court rather than giving a strict interpretation
choose to widen the scope of the Section 498A Indian Penal Code 1860/ Section
85 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. It gave the partner in the live in relation
the cover of penal punishment. This judgement balances gender protection with procedural safeguards.
The Court prioritized substantive justice over technical legal loopholes,
preventing individuals from taking advantage of their own deceit and deception.
The court again proved that no one in the eyes of law can take benefit of its
own wrong.
At the same time, the decision leaves key practical
challenges unaddressed. By giving a purposive interpretation to the penal
statute, the Court has placed a heavy evidentiary burden on trial judges and
police officers. They have given a huge responsibility to them to determine the
true nature of cohabitation and determine the intention to marry. The Parliament
will eventually need to update the statutory definitions directly to make this
legal interpretation workable. The Parliament will now have to ensure that this
extended criminal liability aligns with the formal statutory code.
How to Cite This Article
AMRITA PANDEY, EXPANSION OF MATRIMONIAL CRUELTY JURISPRUDENCE TO LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS: A LEGAL AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DR. LOKESH B.H. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. 4, Issue 1, September 2026, pp. 783-810. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/public/details/expansion-of-matrimonial-cruelty-jurisprudence-to-live-in-relationships-a-legal-and-critical-analysis-of-dr-lokesh-bh-v-state-of-karnataka
Author & Publication Record
Authors: AMRITA PANDEY
Registration ID: 107099 | Published Paper ID: WBL7099
Year: Sep- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 1
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 783-810
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied