A New Chapter In India’s Evolving Family Law
India’s social structure has been changing rapidly. Relationships that were once considered unconventional, including live-in relationships, are increasingly visible, particularly in urban India. Indian courts have consequently faced an important question: Should a woman lose legal protection against cruelty merely because her relationship does not have the formal stamp of marriage? The Supreme Court of India has recently provided an important answer. In its judgment dated 3 August 2026 in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the protection against cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code may extend to certain live-in relationships that qualify as relationships “in the nature of marriage.” (Indian Kanoon) The ruling is significant because it recognises that domestic abuse does not necessarily begin or become less serious merely because two people have not formally married. What Did the Supreme Court Decide? Section 498A IPC was traditionally framed around cruelty by a “husband or relative of the husband.” The corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the IPC, is Section 85 BNS. The provision addresses cruelty against a woman and provides for imprisonment of up to three years along with a fine. (Supreme Court Cases) The question before the Supreme Court was whether the word “husband” could, in appropriate circumstances, cover a man who is in a live-in relationship with a woman where that relationship is substantially similar to marriage. The Court answered in the affirmative. However, this does not mean that every live-in relationship automatically comes under Section 498A or Section 85 BNS. The Court specifically limited the principle to relationships that can genuinely be described as being “in the nature of marriage.” The judgment also recognised an intention to marry as an important element in determining whether the relationship falls within this category. (LawBeat) Why Is This Judgment Important? The heart of the judgment lies in the idea of equality before law. The Supreme Court observed that the purpose of Section 498A is to protect women from serious forms of domestic cruelty, including conduct capable of causing grave physical or mental injury or driving a woman towards suicide, as well as harassment connected with unlawful demands for property or valuable security. If the law protects a woman from such cruelty after marriage but completely removes that protection merely because she and her partner have not formally married, the distinction may fail to serve the very purpose for which the law was created. The Court therefore examined the issue through the lens of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. (Live Law) The judgment reflects a broader judicial principle: law cannot remain completely disconnected from changing social realities. Does This Mean Live-In Relationships Are Now Equal to Marriage? No. This is perhaps the most important clarification. The Supreme Court has not declared live-in relationships equivalent to marriage in every respect. The ruling specifically concerns the application of the anti-cruelty protection contained in Section 498A IPC, and its corresponding framework under Section 85 BNS. (Brut.) The judgment does not automatically grant live-in partners every right or benefit available to legally married couples, such as all matrimonial, succession, inheritance or other marriage-specific rights. Therefore, the ruling should not be interpreted as saying: “A live-in relationship is legally the same as marriage.” Rather, its message is narrower but significant: The absence of a marriage certificate, by itself, cannot be used to deny a woman protection from domestic cruelty where the relationship genuinely possesses the characteristics of a marriage-like relationship. What Does “In the Nature of Marriage” Mean? This phrase is crucial. Not every relationship involving two people living together will necessarily qualify. Courts have historically examined factors such as the nature and duration of the relationship, shared household, the manner in which the couple presents themselves socially, the stability of the relationship and other surrounding circumstances while determining whether a relationship resembles marriage. The 2026 judgment adds particular importance to the intention to marry in determining whether the relationship falls within the protective scope of Section 498A. (LawBeat) This means that the courts will still have to examine the facts of each individual case. A Move Towards Gender- and Status-Neutral Protection? The judgment also raises a larger question about how criminal law should respond to changing family structures. Historically, marriage provided the legal framework within which many protections against domestic cruelty operated. But relationships today do not always follow a single traditional model. The Supreme Court recognised live-in relationships as a social reality and emphasised that the law must respond to changing societal circumstances. (LawBeat) This does not mean that the institution of marriage has lost its legal significance. Instead, it suggests that protection from violence and cruelty should not depend entirely upon formal marital status when the underlying relationship performs the functions and carries the characteristics of a family or marriage-like partnership. What About the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita? There is an important technical point. The Supreme Court judgment primarily interpreted Section 498A IPC, because that was the statutory provision involved in the case. However, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which came into force in 2024, replaced the IPC. The corresponding provision is Section 85 BNS, which deals with cruelty by a husband or relative of the husband towards a woman. (Supreme Court Cases) The judgment itself discusses Section 85 BNS, and legal commentary has treated the Court’s reasoning as highly relevant to the corresponding provision under the new criminal law framework. (Kamaraj IAS Academy in Chennai) Nevertheless, the judgment should not be overstated: the Supreme Court expressly confined the proposition it laid down to the specific anti-cruelty provision rather than declaring a blanket rule for every area of law. (LawBeat) Protection, Not a Blank Cheque An important aspect of the judgment is that legal protection does not mean that every allegation automatically results in criminal liability. The relationship must first satisfy the legal requirements identified by the Court. The facts surrounding


