{"id":392333,"date":"2026-08-04T17:00:12","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T11:30:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=392333"},"modified":"2026-08-04T17:14:19","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T11:44:19","slug":"sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/","title":{"rendered":"Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a landmark judgment raising an important question whether Section 498-A<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) extends to a man in a live-in relationship, while harmonising the principles of strict interpretation of penal statutes with purposive construction of socially beneficial legislation, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol*<\/span> and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., held that:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Section 498-A to be 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.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    The protection extends only to relationships between 2 consenting adults.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    The proposition of law as laid down should be limited to Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> only, and this extended interpretation shall not affect any other provision.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    The safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span>, (2014) 8 SCC 273<\/a> shall be strictly followed. No live-in partner or relative should be arrested without the mandated preliminary safeguards.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Accordingly, the Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal proceedings with direction that the criminal proceedings should continue before the trial court, and the observations in the judgment shall not influence adjudication on merits.<\/p>\n

    Also Read:<\/span> Bombay HC: Father-in-law’s dowry remarks, ignoring husband’s affair, and advising to wife to tolerate violence not cruelty under Section 498A IPC<\/a><\/p>\n

    Material Facts<\/p>\n

    The appellant sought quashing of 2 criminal proceedings instituted by Respondent 2 under Section 482<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) [corresponding to Section 528<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS)]. The complaints alleged cruelty, dowry harassment, physical assault and other offences under the IPC<\/a>, including Section 498-A.<\/p>\n

    The foundation of the dispute was whether the parties had entered into a valid marriage. The appellant asserted that no lawful marriage had ever taken place and, therefore, prosecution under Section 498-A IPC was legally impermissible. Respondent 2 maintained that she had been married to the appellant according to Hindu rites and had thereafter been subjected to cruelty.<\/p>\n

    The High Court declined to quash the proceedings, holding that the expression “husband” in Section 498-A deserved a purposive and expansive interpretation and could extend to a relationship possessing the attributes of marriage. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

    Also Read:<\/span> Husband’s Girlfriend or concubine not a “relative” under S. 498-A RPC; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes FIR<\/a><\/p>\n

    Issues for Determination<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Whether Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> can apply to a man in a live-in relationship?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Whether the expression “husband” under Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> is confined to a legally valid marriage?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Whether the criminal proceedings in the present case deserved to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Analysis<\/p>\n

      At the outset, the Court identified the central issue as whether Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> can be interpreted to include a man in a “live-in relationship”. Since the provision employs the expression “husband”, it was required to choose between 2 competing interpretative approaches, the appellants’ plea for strict interpretation of a penal statute and the respondents’ reliance on purposive interpretation.<\/p>\n

      Strict Interpretation of Penal Statutes<\/p>\n

      The Court examined the settled principles governing interpretation of penal statutes. Referring to Commr. of Customs<\/span> v. Dilip Kumar & Co.<\/span>, (2018) 9 SCC 1<\/a>, it reiterated that statutory interpretation must give effect to the intention of the legislature. Although penal statutes ordinarily receive strict construction, such an approach does not permit courts to ignore the legislative purpose where a purely literal reading would produce absurdity or anomaly. The Court emphasised that strict interpretation is distinct from strict literalism, and that the latter cannot be allowed to defeat the object of the legislation.<\/p>\n

      In Standard Chartered Bank<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span>, (2005) 4 SCC 530<\/a>, it was observed that the modern inquiry is not whether a statute deserves strict or liberal construction, but “what is true construction of the statute”. Penal provisions must certainly be construed fairly, yet courts cannot leave loopholes enabling offenders to escape liability where the legislative intent is clear. The Court noted that even in criminal law, interpretation must remain faithful to the purpose expressed by Parliament rather than adhere to an inflexible literal approach.<\/p>\n

      Further, in Kaveri Plastics<\/span> v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2019<\/a>, traditional principle was reaffirmed that penal statutes must not be stretched to include cases beyond their language and in United States<\/span> v. Wiltberger<\/span>, 1820 SCC OnLine US SC 3<\/a>, it observed that although penal laws are construed strictly, they are “not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature”.<\/p>\n

      Summarising the governing principles, the Court held that strict construction of penal statutes requires courts to “seek the intention of its maker”. Since the legislature cannot anticipate every factual situation in which a statute may operate, strict interpretation cannot be equated with rigid literalism or applied without regard to consequences. The Court are required to consider is “what is true construction of the statute”.<\/p>\n

      Mischief Rule and Purposive Interpretation<\/p>\n

      The Court explained that purposive interpretation requires a provision to be construed in a manner that furthers the object for which it was enacted. Interpretation must advance the values, goals, interests and policies underlying the legislation rather than remain confined to a purely literal reading. While the language of the statute sets the boundaries of interpretation, the Court must ascertain the legal meaning that best effectuates the legislative purpose. It reiterated that statutory interpretation is dynamic, and where a literal construction defeats the purpose of a welfare legislation or produces absurdity, a purposive construction ought to prevail.<\/p>\n

      Tracing the origin of the doctrine, the Court referred to Heydon’s case<\/span>, (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a, observing that the mischief rule seeks to remedy the defect which existed under the previous law. The Court reproduced the four-fold test formulated by Lord Coke: 1) the common law before the enactment, 2) the mischief or defect which the common law failed to address, 3) the remedy provided by Parliament, and 4) the true reason for that remedy. The duty of the Court is to adopt an interpretation that “shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy”, thereby giving effect to the true intention of the legislature.<\/p>\n

      Referring to several precedents, the Court reaffirmed that statutory expressions should ordinarily be understood in the sense that best harmonises with the object of the statute. Where 2 interpretations are possible, the one that advances the legislative purpose and avoids “legislative futility” deserves acceptance.<\/p>\n

      Summarising the discussion, the Court held that both the text and the context of the legislation, as well as the social context in which it operates, illuminate the purpose of the statute.<\/p>\n

      Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>: Concept, Object, Import and Misuse of<\/p>\n

      The Court noted that Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> was introduced through the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 to address the growing menace of dowry-related cruelty and violence against married women. Referring to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Court noted that Parliament considered the increasing number of dowry deaths and instances of cruelty by the husband and his relatives as a matter of serious concern. The provision was enacted to deal effectively not only with dowry deaths but also with cases of cruelty inflicted upon married women by their in-laws.<\/p>\n

      The Court reaffirmed that Section 498-A is a socially beneficent provision and must receive an interpretation that advances its remedial purpose. Endorsing the reasoning in Reema Aggarwal<\/span> v. Anupam<\/span>, (2004) 3 SCC 199<\/a>, the Court framed the question before it in similar terms, whether a person, be it a live-in partner or his relatives, could be allowed to hide behind the smokescreen of the relationship not being a valid marriage while meting out cruelty to the female partner and the Court had observed that a legislation which was enacted to curb a social evil “requires to be interpreted with a certain element of realism too and not merely pedantically or hypertechnically”.<\/span> A person who enters into a marital arrangement cannot be permitted to evade criminal liability by contending that the marriage was not legally valid, as such “legalistic niceties would destroy the purpose of the provisions”. The expression “husband” must be construed purposively where a person assumes the status of a husband and subjects a woman to cruelty, irrespective of the technical validity of the marriage for the limited purposes of Sections 498-A<\/a> and 304-B<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Referring its earlier precedents, the Court highlighted that the concept of “cruelty” under Section 498-A has evolved beyond physical violence. Judicial decisions have recognised that cruelty includes wilful conduct, mental torture, harassment and conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury. At the same time, the Court reiterated that every matrimonial discord does not amount to cruelty. The conduct complained of must satisfy the statutory ingredients, and petty quarrels or ordinary wear and tear of married life cannot attract Section 498-A. [Manju Ram Kalita<\/span> v. State of Assam<\/span>, (2009) 13 SCC 330<\/a>] More recently, the Court has clarified that cruelty simpliciter is insufficient unless it is accompanied by the statutory intention contemplated in the Explanation to Section 498-A. [Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda<\/span> v. State of Gujarat<\/span>, (2025) 2 SCC 116<\/a>]<\/p>\n

      The Court also acknowledged the recurring concern regarding misuse of Section 498-A. Referring to decisions such as Preeti Gupta<\/span> v. State of Jharkhand<\/span>, (2010) 7 SCC 667<\/a>; Arnesh Kumar<\/span>; Rinku Baheti<\/span> v. Sandesh Sharda<\/span>, (2025) 3 SCC 686<\/a>; Dara Lakshmi Narayana<\/span> v. State of Telangana<\/span>, (2025) 3 SCC 735<\/a> and Achin Gupta<\/span> v. State of Haryana<\/span>, (2025) 3 SCC 756<\/a>, where it was observed that exaggerated allegations, indiscriminate implication of the husband’s relatives and the tendency to invoke criminal proceedings as a tool for personal vendetta or monetary pressure have repeatedly attracted judicial criticism. The Court recalled the observation in Arnesh Kumar<\/span> that Section 498-A, despite being enacted to combat harassment, has at times acquired “a dubious place of pride” as a provision used “as weapons rather than shield”.<\/p>\n

      The Court concluded that Section 498-A must continue to receive a purposive interpretation consistent with its protective object, while courts must remain vigilant against its misuse. It held that:<\/p>\n

      “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… 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.”<\/p>\n

      “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage”: Understanding of<\/p>\n

      The Court observed that the general understanding of a “live-in relationship” is that 2 individuals live under the same roof, enjoying pooled resources and joint expenses, and it may also include a physical aspect. While the expressions “live-in relationship” and “relationship in the nature of marriage” may be used interchangeably in common parlance, the law perceives a distinction between them. As per the principles laid down in earlier decisions, “live-in relationship” is a wider category, whereas “relationship in the nature of marriage” is a subset thereof.<\/p>\n

      The Court clarified that the expression which has received judicial attention is not “live-in relationship” but “relationship in the nature of marriage” occurring in Section 2<\/a>(f<\/span>), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a> (DV Act). Relying on D. Velusamy<\/span> v. D. Patchaiammal<\/span>, (2010) 10 SCC 469<\/a>, the Court reiterated that Parliament has consciously drawn a distinction between the relationship of marriage and a relationship in the nature of marriage, while extending the benefit of the DV Act<\/a> to both.<\/p>\n

      Reaffirming the principles laid down in D. Velusamy<\/span>, the Court noted that a “relationship in the nature of marriage” is “akin to a common law marriage”. Such a relationship ordinarily requires that the couple hold themselves out to society as spouses, are legally capable of marrying, are otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, voluntarily cohabit for a significant period, and live together in a shared household. The Court also reiterated that “merely spending weekends together or a 1 night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’” and that “not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage”. Whether these requirements are fulfilled is a matter to be established by evidence.<\/p>\n

      The Court next referred to Indra Sarma<\/span> v. V.K.V. Sarma<\/span>, (2013) 15 SCC 755<\/a>, wherein it was recognised that although a live-in relationship between 2 consenting adults is not an offence, the DV Act<\/a> was enacted “to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women” by covering couples in a relationship in the nature of marriage. The Court had identified illustrative, though not exhaustive, indicators for determining whether a relationship falls within that expression, including the duration of cohabitation, shared household, pooling of financial resources, domestic arrangements, sexual relationship, children, public representation as husband and wife, and the common intention and conduct of the parties.<\/p>\n

      Summarising the legal position emerging from the discussed precedents, the Court held that the DV Act<\/a> applies to relationships in the nature of marriage. Although “in colloquial terms, the 2 phrases may be used interchangeably, the law perceives a difference between them”. It held that “live-in relationship” is a wider category and “relationship in the nature of marriage” is a subset thereunder, the recognised indicators being illustrative but not exhaustive.<\/p>\n

      The Court further clarified that, for the purposes of the present judgment, it had used the term “live-in relationship”, in the context of a “relationship in the nature of marriage”.<\/p>\n

      Whether Protection under DV Act<\/a> Suffices?<\/p>\n

      The Court rejected the contention that DV Act<\/a> provides sufficient protection to women in “relationships in the nature of marriage”, thereby making an expanded interpretation of Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> unnecessary. The Court held that although the DV Act<\/a> is a comprehensive welfare legislation addressing various forms of domestic violence, its overall character is civil, whereas Section 498-A creates criminal liability.<\/p>\n

      The Court noted that domestic violence continues to be a widespread social problem and has been recognised internationally as a human rights concern. The DV Act<\/a> was enacted to provide civil remedies against physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse occurring within a domestic relationship. It covers women in a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, a category distinct from the broader expression “live-in relationship”, and provides reliefs such as residence, protection, monetary relief, custody and compensation.<\/p>\n

      Drawing a clear distinction between civil and criminal consequences, the Court held that it would be “a misstatement of law” to regard the DV Act<\/a> as providing adequate protection equivalent to Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>. While the DV Act<\/a> primarily carries civil and monetary consequences, Section 498-A is backed by the force of criminal deterrence. Except for punishment under Section 31 for violation of protection orders, DV Act<\/a> does not create criminal liability for acts of domestic violence themselves. Consequently, the availability of remedies under the DV Act<\/a> cannot justify denying women in qualifying relationships the protection of Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Protection of Law Depends on a Choice?<\/p>\n

      The Court observed that the controversy is not merely one of statutory interpretation but also raises important constitutional concerns under Articles 14, 15 and 21. By illustrating situations involving identical acts of cruelty, one within marriage and the others in a relationship in the nature of marriage, the Court questioned “why should there be any difference in the protection” merely because the parties chose to live together without marriage,<\/p>\n

      Emphasising the constitutional guarantee of personal autonomy, the Court reiterated that the law recognises the right and freedom of an individual to choose the person they want to be with as an inextricable part of dignity and personal liberty. Drawing from K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.)<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (2017) 10 SCC 1<\/a>, it noted that the State’s duty is “to safeguard the ability to take decisions — the autonomy of the individual — and not to dictate those decisions”. Relying upon Shafin Jahan<\/span> v. Asokan K.M.<\/span>, (2018) 16 SCC 368<\/a>, wherein the Court reaffirmed that “expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity” and that Constitutional Courts exist to uphold, not curtail, the sphere of individual liberty.<\/p>\n

      The Court further observed that denying Section 498-A protection solely because the parties are not formally married would “create a class within a class”. While classification is permissible, it must rest on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the law. For the limited purpose of protection against domestic cruelty, it found the distinction between a married woman and a woman in a relationship in the nature of marriage lacks a convincing constitutional basis.<\/p>\n

      The Court held that since the Constitution protects an individual’s choice of partner, the availability of criminal protection against domestic cruelty cannot depend solely upon the formal label attached to that relationship where it otherwise possesses the characteristics of a relationship in the nature of marriage.<\/p>\n

      “This distinction between “married” and “live-in relationship in the nature of marriage”, inasmuch as it relates to the protection envisaged by Section 498-A, has no rational nexus with the object of preventing domestic violence and is as such offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”<\/p>\n

      Harmonising Words and Intent<\/p>\n

      The Court held that once the distinction between a legally married woman and a woman in a “relationship in the nature of marriage” is found to have no rational nexus with the object of preventing cruelty, the expression “husband” in Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> must be interpreted in a manner that harmonises the statutory text with its beneficial purpose. Reiterating the modern preference for purposive interpretation in socially beneficial legislation, the Court observed that “the Court’s duty is to discern the intention of the legislature and advance the mischief rule to ensure the statute is not reduced to futility”.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The Court concluded that “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.”<\/span> Consequently, it held that a woman in a “relationship in the nature of marriage” is entitled to the protection of Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> by giving the expression “husband” a purposive interpretation consistent with the reformative, corrective and socially beneficial object of the provision. At the same time, the Court clarified that this expanded interpretation to Section 498-A would not govern the meaning of similar expressions in other matrimonial statutes.<\/p>\n

      Misuse of Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> — Relevant Safeguard<\/p>\n

      Recognising that Section 498-A is a well-intentioned provision which has, at times, been employed as “a means of settling scores and ventilating grievances”, the Court held that its expanded application must be accompanied by a stricter threshold owing to its penal consequences.<\/p>\n

      The Court clarified that not every live-in relationship is entitled to the protection of Section 498-A. Protection is confined only to those relationships which are both “in the nature of marriage” and accompanied by a demonstrable intent to marry. While a relationship may satisfy the indicia laid down in Indra Sarma<\/span>, the absence of an intention to take the relationship into matrimony disentitles it from invoking the penal provision. Since criminal liability is involved, a higher standard of proof applies, and the initial burden lies on the female live-in partner to establish the existence of such intent.<\/p>\n

      Recognising the serious consequences that accompany prosecution under Section 498-A, the Court directed that the safeguards evolved in Arnesh Kumar<\/span> should apply with equal force to prosecutions arising out of qualifying live-in relationships.<\/p>\n

      Accordingly, the Court directed that no live-in partner “in the nature of marriage” or his relatives should be arrested without compliance with the mandatory safeguards and preliminary enquiries governing arrests under Section 498-A.<\/p>\n

      Also Read:<\/span> Dowry Taunts Are Not Always ‘Cruelty’: Bombay HC Draws the Line Under Section 498A<\/a><\/p>\n

      Decision<\/p>\n

      The Court held that Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> extends to live-in relationships which qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage”, provided the relationship carries an intention to marry as an intrinsic element. It clarified that the expanded interpretation is confined only to Section 498-A and does not automatically govern other statutory provisions.<\/p>\n

      The Court noted that, in the present case, the FIR alleged that the appellant had suppressed the factum of his prior marriage, and, along with his family members, subjected the complainant to dowry harassment and physical cruelty resulting in burn injuries. Accepting these allegations at face value, the Court found that they prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and that the case did not fall within the parameters warranting interference under State of Haryana<\/span> v. Bhajan Lal<\/span>, 1992 Supp (1) 335. At this stage, the Court could not undertake an appreciation of disputed facts. Consequently, the trial was permitted to proceed.<\/p>\n

      Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the refusal to quash the criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

      Also Read:<\/span> “Section 498A IPC not panacea for all matrimonial ills”: Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against husband and his family<\/a><\/p>\n

      [Lokesh B.H.<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, 2026 INSC 784, decided on 3-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

      *Judgment Authored by Justice Sanjay Karol<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

      Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

      For the Petitioner:<\/span> Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR Mr. Narender Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sauvik Singh, Adv.<\/p>\n

      For the Respondents:<\/span> Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sharanya, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bhuvnesh Mittal, Adv.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The Court clarified that the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273<\/a> shall be strictly followed. No live-in partner or relative should be arrested without the mandated preliminary safeguards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":392334,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[2570,2698,43549,55015,3190,111476,61925,21114,98905,31299,48461,5363],"class_list":["post-392333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-Cruelty","tag-Domestic_Violence","tag-justice-nongmeikapam-kotiswar-singh","tag-justice-sanjay-karol","tag-Live-in-relationships","tag-misuse-of-section-498-a-ipc","tag-purposive-interpretation","tag-quashing-of-fir","tag-relationship-in-the-nature-of-marriage","tag-section-498-a-ipc","tag-strict-interpretation","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSC: Section 498-A IPC Extends to Live-In Relationships | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that Section 498-A IPC extends to live-in relationships \u201cin the nature of marriage\u201d and this ruling will not apply to other matrimonial statutes.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that Section 498-A IPC extends to live-in relationships \u201cin the nature of marriage\u201d and this ruling will not apply to other matrimonial statutes.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-04T11:30:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-04T11:44:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"headline\":\"Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-04T11:30:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-04T11:44:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3492,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Cruelty\",\"Domestic Violence\",\"Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh\",\"Justice Sanjay Karol\",\"Live-in-relationships\",\"Misuse of Section 498-A IPC\",\"purposive interpretation\",\"quashing of FIR\",\"relationship in the nature of marriage\",\"Section 498-A IPC\",\"Strict Interpretation\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC: Section 498-A IPC Extends to Live-In Relationships | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-04T11:30:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-04T11:44:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court holds that Section 498-A IPC extends to live-in relationships \u201cin the nature of marriage\u201d and this ruling will not apply to other matrimonial statutes.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Section 498-A IPC Live-In Relationships\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/04\\\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_7\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC: Section 498-A IPC Extends to Live-In Relationships | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court holds that Section 498-A IPC extends to live-in relationships \u201cin the nature of marriage\u201d and this ruling will not apply to other matrimonial statutes.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships","og_description":"Supreme Court holds that Section 498-A IPC extends to live-in relationships \u201cin the nature of marriage\u201d and this ruling will not apply to other matrimonial statutes.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-08-04T11:30:12+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-04T11:44:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/"},"author":{"name":"Ritu","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"headline":"Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships","datePublished":"2026-08-04T11:30:12+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-04T11:44:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/"},"wordCount":3492,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.webp","keywords":["Cruelty","Domestic Violence","Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh","Justice Sanjay Karol","Live-in-relationships","Misuse of Section 498-A IPC","purposive interpretation","quashing of FIR","relationship in the nature of marriage","Section 498-A IPC","Strict Interpretation","Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/","name":"SC: Section 498-A IPC Extends to Live-In Relationships | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-04T11:30:12+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-04T11:44:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Supreme Court holds that Section 498-A IPC extends to live-in relationships \u201cin the nature of marriage\u201d and this ruling will not apply to other matrimonial statutes.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Section 498-A IPC Live-In Relationships"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/04\/sc-section-498-a-ipc-extends-to-live-in-relationships\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Section-498-A-IPC-Live-In-Relationships.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=392333"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392333\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":392337,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392333\/revisions\/392337"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/392334"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=392333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=392333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=392333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}