New Delhi: Can a woman in a live-in relationship prosecute her partner for dowry harassment, or is the law limited to married couples?
Faced with this peculiar question of law, the Supreme Court has asked the Centre to respond to an appeal filed by a man from Karnataka who challenged two police charge sheets accusing him of harassing his live-in partner for dowry and attempting to murder her.
The appeal questions the Karnataka High Court’s interpretation of section 498A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC)—and its corresponding provision under the new penal code—related to dowry harassment and the expansion of the law’s scope to live-in relationships.
Considering the issue’s importance, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh impleaded the Union Ministry of Law and Justice as a respondent and directed it to submit its response to the petition. The court also appointed advocate Nina R Nariman as amicus curiae (friend of the court), asking her to share her thoughts on the legal point raised in the petition.
The court stayed all pending proceedings in the trial court against the man and set 9 March as the next date of hearing.
Senior advocate Sanjay M Nuli, appearing for the man, challenged the High Court’s decision to reject his client’s plea to cancel the criminal cases filed by his live-in partner. Nuli informed the court that his client was still legally married to his first wife when he began living with the complainant.
He argued that even if the man had married the complainant, that marriage would be void ab initio (illegal) from the start because the first marriage was still valid. In that situation, his client’s marriage, if any, with the complainant had no legal sanctity. Therefore, the complainant could not legally refer to him as her husband under section 498A IPC, Nuli told the bench.
Also Read: Indian families are killing their daughters with no remorse. They’re protecting ‘tradition’
What the Karnataka HC said
In its judgement delivered in November 2025, the Karnataka High Court declined to accept the argument that dowry harassment allegations cannot apply to live-in partners and that the offence can only occur within a legal marital relationship.
The High Court analysed the legislative intent behind Section 498A of the IPC and opined that this provision aims to protect a woman from cruelty inflicted by her husband or his relatives.
“The section criminalises such conduct and prescribes punishment for the same. The explanation appended to the section defines the term “cruelty” in two distinct but complementary limbs—first, covering wilful conduct of such nature as is likely to endanger the life, limb, or mental or physical health of the woman; and second, encompassing harassment with the object of coercing the woman or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for dowry or valuable security,” the HC said.
Hence, the section has a two-fold objective—to deter acts of physical and mental cruelty that drive women to despair or suicide, and to curb the social evil of dowry-related harassment.
This beneficial legislation addressed women’s concerns and ensured their dignity, safety, and protection, the court said.
The HC further said that the man’s claim was untenable in view of the legislative purpose and the social context in which the law operates. It added that a provision intended to fix a social evil must be interpreted in a way that advances its objective.
“The court cannot permit the accused to take advantage of his own wrong, particularly where he himself has acted in deceit and bad faith to induce Respondent No.2 (complainant) into a relationship clothed with the appearance of marriage,” the HC held.
If the man’s argument is accepted, the HC added, it would result in an unjust and anomalous outcome: a man who tricks a woman into a void marriage by hiding his existing marriage could then escape criminal liability under Section 498A merely because the relationship is not legally valid.
Also Read: Love, lies, laundry & UCC—inside India’s live-in relationships
The case
The petitioner, a Bengaluru resident, allegedly married the complainant in October 2010 and began living with her in Shivamogga. The first case against him was registered in August 2016 when she, upon returning from her parents’ house, found the house empty. On learning that the accused and his family members had vacated the place, the woman got an FIR lodged. Days later, she got Section 498A IPC added to it.
After the first FIR was lodged, the woman claimed that the accused met her, and during this meeting, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. She was saved by two unknown persons and then taken to a hospital by her mother and brother. She claimed to have sustained burn injuries on her left leg.
She narrated this sequence of events to a head constable who met her at the hospital a month later to record her statement regarding the FIR. During that time, she alleged that she was mentally and physically harassed soon after her marriage to the accused. She also claimed that her husband and his family threatened her when she questioned them about his first marriage.
(Edited by Varnika Dhawan)