Bengaluru: In a landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court has clarified that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives, is not limited to legally valid marriages. The court ruled that the provision also applies to “live-in relationships” and marriages that are void or voidable, emphasizing the law’s primary objective of protecting women from cruelty, harassment, and exploitation.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order on November 18, 2025, while hearing a petition filed by a man seeking quashing of a case registered against him following a complaint by his second wife. The petitioner had married a second woman in 2010, despite having a subsisting legal marriage with another woman, with whom he also had a daughter. The second relationship ended in 2016, after which the second wife filed a complaint alleging cruelty, dowry demands, physical abuse, and concealment of his first marriage.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 498A could not be applied because the complainant was not a legally wedded wife. Advocate Harsha Kumar Gowda contended that the second arrangement was at best a “live-in relationship,” and the law should only cover legally valid marriages.

Rejecting this argument, the Karnataka High Court held that Section 498A is a “remedial, socially beneficial safeguard meant to uphold women’s dignity and safety.” The court emphasized that the term “husband” extends beyond legal marriages to relationships that have the attributes of marriage, including live-in arrangements, provided the essential elements of cruelty, as defined under the law, are present.

The court observed, “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.”

In its reasoning, the court noted that allowing the petitioner’s argument would enable a man to benefit from hiding an existing marriage and inducing a woman into a void relationship. This would not only undermine the purpose of Section 498A but also promote fraud and exploitation. The judgment clarified that a man who leads a woman to believe she is legally married and then subjects her to cruelty cannot escape liability merely because the marriage is void in law.

The court further highlighted that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant had all characteristics of a marriage. Such relationships, whether termed “in the nature of marriage” or live-in, fall within the ambit of Section 498A if allegations meet the statutory definition of cruelty. Justice Govindaraj emphasized that what matters is the substance of the relationship rather than its legal validity.

“If a couple lives as husband and wife and the woman faces cruelty, she cannot be denied protection simply because the man hid his existing marriage. Since Section 498A aims to address social wrongdoing, it must be interpreted liberally—especially where the woman believed the marriage was valid and only the man knew it was void and now seeks to use that fact to escape liability,” the court stated.

The judgment also underscored that cruelty under Section 498A can include physical, emotional, and mental abuse, harassment for dowry, and other forms of maltreatment that undermine a woman’s dignity and well-being. By extending the scope of the law to live-in and void marriages, the court reinforced its protective intent, ensuring that women are not left vulnerable to exploitation or deception.

Legal experts have welcomed the ruling as a progressive step that aligns with the social objectives of the law. They note that live-in relationships are increasingly common, and in cases where a woman is misled about the validity of a marital arrangement, she must still have recourse to legal protection against cruelty.

This judgment has significant implications for ongoing and future cases under Section 498A, particularly those involving relationships that do not meet the formal legal criteria of marriage. The ruling provides clarity that the protective scope of the law is determined by the lived reality of the relationship and the presence of cruelty, rather than the formal registration or legality of the marriage.

In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court has set a precedent in affirming that live-in partners and participants in void or voidable marriages can be held accountable under Section 498A IPC. The decision reinforces the principle that legal protections against cruelty and abuse must adapt to social realities, ensuring that women in non-traditional marital arrangements are not denied justice.