Supreme Court Examines Applicability of Section 498A IPC to Live-in Relationships. The Core Issue is Whether a Man in a Void Marriage or a Relationship in the Nature of Marriage Can Be Prosecuted as a 'Husband' Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.

Criminal appeal against High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and other offences, raising the question of whether a man in a live-in relationship or void marriage can be prosecuted.

Appellants sought quashing of CC No. 28129 of 2023 and CC No. 630 of 2019 before the High Court; upon rejection, appealed to the Supreme Court for quashing of the proceedings.

Dispute arose from allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment; appellant contended no valid marriage existed, hence Section 498A IPC is not attracted.

High Court of Karnataka rejected petitions under Section 482 CrPC, holding that 'husband' includes men in void/voidable marriages and live-in relationships with attributes of marriage, provided cruelty ingredients are met.

Whether a man in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC. Whether a void marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage attracts Section 498A IPC. Interpretation of the term 'husband' in Section 498A IPC.

Appellant argued that Section 498A IPC, being a penal provision, must be strictly construed to include only a man in a valid and lawful marriage; void marriages do not qualify. Reliance placed on Shivcharan Lal Verma, U. Suvetha, and Aluri Venkata Ramana to contend that valid marriage is a sine qua non. Union of India supported appellant, submitting that parliamentary intent and existing laws restrict Section 498A to married women; live-in relationships are covered under DV Act for civil remedies only. Respondent no.2 urged a purposive construction, relying on Reema Aggarwal and A. Subash Babu, arguing that a man inducing a woman into a void marriage cannot evade liability; at the stage of quashing, prima facie cruelty case should not be interfered with. State of Karnataka supported respondent no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Amicus curiae argued for an expansive reading of 'husband' consistent with Articles 14, 15(3), 21, and privacy rights; cited Hiral P. Harsora and Reema Aggarwal to suggest that excluding men in relationships in the nature of marriage would be discriminatory and contrary to the object of preventing domestic violence.

The term “husband” in Section 498A must be given a purposive and expansive construction, and the protection afforded by the provision cannot be denied merely on the technical ground of a void marriage. Where a man induces a woman to believe that she is lawfully married to him, and thereafter subjects her to cruelty, such a man cannot be permitted to evade criminal responsibility on the plea that no valid marriage existed in law. I hold that the expression “husband” in Section 498A IPC is not confined to a man in a legally valid marriage, but extends to one who enters into a marital relationship which is void or voidable, as also to a live-in relationship which bears the attributes of marriage, so long as the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined in the explanation to the section are satisfied.

Marriage of appellant and respondent no.2 was allegedly solemnized on 17th October 2010. Disputes led to filing of two complaints in 2016: Crime No. 383 of 2016 and Crime No. 450 of 2016. Charge-sheet CC No. 630 of 2019 was filed under Section 498A IPC; charge-sheet CC No. 28129 of 2023 was filed under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 307, 494, 149 IPC and Sections 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant filed petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings, which were dismissed by High Court of Karnataka vide common judgment and order dated 18th November 2025 in Criminal Petition Nos. 8134 of 2024 and 9412 of 2021. Appellant then filed Special Leave Petitions, which were granted, and the appeals were heard by the Supreme Court.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498A, 504, 506, 307, 494, 149
• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: 3, 4
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 2(Q)
• Constitution of India: 14, 15(3), 21