Underlining that “live-in relationships are today, more or less, a reality”, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that not only husbands but men in live-in relations and their relatives too can be prosecuted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for cruelty to their partners where such relationship is between two consenting adults.The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N K Singh said the provision is applicable to “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage” with “the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof”.The bench said a woman in a “relationship in the nature of marriage” shall be protected under Section 498A, giving the word “husband” a purposive interpretation, keeping in view “the reformative, corrective and socially beneficial intent of the Section”.Also Read | Live-in partner now protected against domestic cruelty: What SC said“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,” it said.The bench also directed that the guidelines laid down against arbitrary arrests in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar case be “strictly applied” and no accused or his relative in such a case “shall be arrested without preliminary enquiries”.The judgment came on an appeal challenging a November 18, 2025 Karnataka High Court order which rejected a plea by a man seeking quashing of the case initiated against him at the instance of the woman he was allegedly married to in 2010. Although they were living together since then, the appellant Lokesh B H contended that they were not married and, hence, Section 498A would not apply.According to the FIR, the woman alleged that the appellant suppressed information of his prior marriage from her and he, along with his family members, harassed her for dowry and also caused physical injuries to her.Story continues below this adRefusing to quash the proceedings, the Supreme Court said, “Whether or not this actually happened is a matter of trial. When the allegations are taken at face value, it cannot be said that they do not prima facie constitute an offence, not disclosing a cognisable offence.”Also Read | Not declaring live-in relationship could land couples in jail under Madhya Pradesh’s UCCThe appellant argued before the top court that Section 498A being a penal provision must be interpreted strictly, confined only to a husband married to a woman in the traditional sense. The bench, however, rejected this.Writing for the bench, Justice Karol said, “The purpose of penalising cruelty by a husband and his relatives was to introduce a factor of deterrence against the reprehensible behaviour that was exhibited by such family members toward a married woman, which was not addressed by the existing laws at the time. The objective, quite obviously, was reformative, cloaked with punishment.”“Since the provision was aimed at solving a societal issue, it is this larger objective of securing equality for women, stepping away from the superiority of males that is an inheritance from bygone days, that has to inform the understanding in interpretation and implementation of the Section. Given this purpose, implementation necessarily has to be not literal/conservative or technical but instead informed and aware of the objective. So, while it is true that penal statutes have to receive strict construction, the light of that principle cannot dim the objective of one part of the statute,” the bench said.Story continues below this ad“It has also to be understood that forty-three years ago, when this provision was introduced in 1983, there were only two laws dealing specifically with domestic cruelty. One being the general law of the IPC and the other, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, short of introducing an entirely new legislation, this one Section, as an option, it appears, in the hands of the legislative branch was duly exercised. The interpretation given to this penal provision must be an interpretation which keeps in view the reformative objective, or else its mandate will be defeated,” it said.Also Read | Adults below marriage age have right to live with partner of choice, rules court“When the objective of the Section 498A was to provide coverage to those cases where harassment by husband or in-laws through wilful conduct causing mental or physical injury or driving the woman to suicide, then to say that such harassment can only be caused when they are married and not before that, in our considered view, would be a case of over simplification. Whether or not the woman in question is married or not, in the present day, does not have a proximate link to the objective of the Section, which is to prevent cruelty in such a household setting. It may have been the case four decades ago and as such the law was then, truly well intentioned, but law, by its very nature, is organic and responds to change in society in some cases and leads to change in society in other cases,” it said.“The present case is of the former kind, where it is responding to the change. ‘Live-in relationships’ are today, more or less, a reality – primarily in urban areas (be it for whatever reason), where an increasingly large section of the population resides, and the law must adapt itself to serve those who choose this form,” the bench said.It also flagged the misuse of the provision saying it “troubles us”.Story continues below this ad“We have already noted above instances of misuse of Section 498A IPC being recognised by this Court. Numerous times, this Court has observed that a well-intentioned provision has caused considerable hardship, since it is being misused and employed as a means of settling scores and ventilating grievances. Although we have extended its benefit to ‘relationships in the nature of marriage’, the growing, worrisome trend of misuse troubles us,” it said.