Introduction

A live-in relationship does not automatically have the same legal status as a formal marriage. However, Indian law does not leave women in all non-marital relationships without protection against domestic violence or cruelty. The legal position has also recently undergone an important development.

In August 2026, the Supreme Court in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, held that the protection against cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can extend to a live-in relationship that qualifies as a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of the provision while stressing that not every live-in relationship would qualify. The judgment is particularly significant because the corresponding provision under the present criminal law framework is Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 85 substantially reproduces Section 498A, while Section 86 separately defines “cruelty.” However, the Supreme Court’s 2026 judgment itself concerned Section 498A IPC, so the decision should not be described as a direct ruling on a prosecution under Section 85 BNS.

What Is a “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage”?

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) expressly recognises relationships beyond formal marriage. Under Section 2(f), a “domestic relationship” includes a relationship between two persons who live, or have at any point lived, together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or as members of a joint family.

However, merely describing a relationship as a “live-in relationship” is not enough. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that courts must examine the substance and circumstances of the relationship. Relevant factors can include the duration of the relationship, shared household, financial arrangements, domestic arrangements, sexual relationship, children, socialisation in public, and the intention and conduct of the parties. These factors are indicative rather than exhaustive. Therefore, a short-term or casual arrangement will not automatically become a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”

Does Every Live-In Relationship Come Under the Domestic Violence Act?

The PWDVA does not equate every live-in relationship with marriage. The relationship must satisfy the statutory requirement of being a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, the Supreme Court explained that a relationship in the nature of marriage is distinct from marriage itself. Later decisions, including Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, developed factors for determining whether a particular live-in relationship has the characteristics of a marriage-like relationship.

The absence of a marriage certificate, therefore, is not by itself decisive. Courts look at the actual nature of the relationship and the conduct of the parties. The central question is whether the relationship, viewed in its entirety, possesses the characteristics of a marriage-like domestic arrangement recognised by law.

What Protection Does the Domestic Violence Act Provide?

The PWDVA is primarily a protective and remedial legislation designed to provide relief to women facing domestic violence. Under Section 3, domestic violence includes physical, sexual, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse, among other conduct specified by the Act. Where the statutory requirements are satisfied, a woman may seek several forms of relief. Section 17 recognises the right to reside in a shared household, Section 18 provides for protection orders, Section 19 deals with residence orders, Section 20 provides for monetary relief, Section 21 deals with custody orders, Section 22 permits compensation orders and Section 23 enables the Magistrate to grant interim and ex parte orders.

Thus, a woman in a qualifying relationship in the nature of marriage may seek remedies under the PWDVA even though the relationship was not formally solemnised as a marriage.

Is Domestic Violence the Same as Criminal Cruelty?

This distinction remains important even after the Supreme Court’s latest ruling. The PWDVA is a protective statute that provides civil and remedial relief against domestic violence, while criminal cruelty is dealt with separately under the criminal law framework. Under the IPC, the relevant provision was Section 498A. Under the BNS, the corresponding offence is Section 85, while Section 86 defines cruelty.

The two legal frameworks therefore operate differently, even though the same factual conduct may potentially give rise to remedies under both. A woman may, depending on the facts, seek protective relief under the PWDVA while the same conduct may also be examined under the applicable criminal provisions.

What Does Section 85 of the BNS Say About Cruelty?

Section 85 BNS provides punishment where a person, being the husband or relative of the husband of a woman, subjects her to cruelty. The punishment may extend to three years’ imprisonment and fine. Section 86 separately defines “cruelty” for the purposes of Section 85.

Section 86 covers wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or physical or mental health. It also covers harassment intended to coerce the woman or a person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or harassment on account of failure to meet such a demand.

Sections 85 and 86 substantially reproduce the earlier Section 498A IPC framework, with the definition of cruelty placed separately in Section 86.

Can Cruelty Protection Extend to a Live-In Partner?

If the relationship qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage. This is the major development from the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka.

The case arose from proceedings under Section 498A IPC. The question was whether the expression “husband” could be interpreted to include a man in a live-in relationship that was in the nature of marriage. The Supreme Court held that Section 498A protection can extend to such a relationship. The Court reasoned that excluding women in genuine marriage-like relationships from protection against cruelty merely because the relationship lacks formal marital status would undermine the protective purpose of the provision.

The Court also emphasised that the law must respond to changing social realities and that live-in relationships between consenting adults are no longer an unknown social phenomenon. However, the judgment does not mean that every live-in relationship is automatically treated as a marriage or that every live-in partner can automatically be prosecuted for cruelty.

Does This Mean Every Live-In Partner Can Be Prosecuted?

This is perhaps the most important limitation of the judgment. The Supreme Court did not hold that every man who lives with a woman can automatically be treated as her “husband” for the purpose of cruelty law. The protection concerns relationships that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage.”

The legal question is therefore not simply whether the couple lived together. Courts must examine the nature of the relationship and determine whether it possessed the characteristics of a marriage-like relationship. Factors concerning the parties’ intention, duration of the relationship, shared household, domestic arrangements, financial arrangements and their conduct may become relevant depending on the facts.

Therefore, a casual or temporary live-in arrangement cannot automatically be equated with a relationship in the nature of marriage merely because the parties shared accommodation.

Does the Supreme Court’s Judgment Directly Apply Section 85 BNS?

This point requires careful wording. The Lokesh B.H. judgment directly concerned Section 498A IPC because the underlying proceedings arose under the IPC. However, Section 85 BNS is the corresponding provision under the current criminal law framework and substantially reproduces the earlier cruelty provision, while Section 86 separately defines cruelty.

The 2026 judgment is therefore highly relevant to understanding the interpretation of the corresponding cruelty framework under the BNS. However, it is more legally accurate to state that the Supreme Court extended Section 498A protection to qualifying live-in relationships and that Section 85 BNS is the corresponding provision under the current criminal law, rather than stating that the Supreme Court directly decided the application of Section 85 BNS in a live-in relationship.

Why Was the Domestic Violence Act Not Considered Enough?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is significant because the existence of remedies under the PWDVA does not necessarily eliminate the relevance of criminal law. The PWDVA primarily provides protective and remedial measures, whereas a criminal prosecution carries different legal consequences and serves a different purpose.

The Supreme Court therefore rejected the idea that the existence of the Domestic Violence Act, by itself, meant that women in marriage-like relationships could be denied the protection of criminal cruelty law. This means that, depending on the facts and applicable statutory requirements, protective remedies under the PWDVA and criminal proceedings may operate alongside each other.

What Does “Cruelty” Actually Mean?

Cruelty under Section 85 read with Section 86 BNS is not simply another word for every disagreement, argument or unhappy relationship. Section 86 identifies specific categories of conduct that can amount to cruelty. The first concerns wilful conduct sufficiently serious that it is likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or physical or mental health. The second concerns specified forms of harassment connected with unlawful demands for property or valuable security.

Therefore, ordinary relationship incompatibility or disagreements should not automatically be equated with criminal cruelty. The statutory ingredients still have to be established on the facts of each case.

What If the Partner Was Already Married?

This can make the factual and legal analysis more complicated. Earlier Supreme Court decisions have recognised that a relationship may fail to qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” in circumstances where, for example, one party knowingly enters into a relationship with a person who already has a subsisting marriage. The overall circumstances, including the partie’s knowledge and conduct, remain relevant.

However, the Lokesh B.H. judgment demonstrates that the absence of a legally valid marriage cannot, by itself, be used as an automatic answer to a cruelty allegation where the relationship otherwise falls within the category recognised by the Court. The precise facts therefore remain extremely important.

What If a Man Deceives a Woman Into Believing They Are Married?

This is a separate legal issue. Section 81 BNS deals with a man who, by deceit, causes a woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and thereby causes her to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief. The provision carries punishment of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fine.

Section 81 should not be confused with Section 85. Section 81 specifically concerns deception about the existence of a lawful marriage, whereas Section 85 concerns cruelty. The ingredients and factual circumstances relevant to the two provisions are therefore different.

Does the Supreme Court’s Decision Mean Live-In Relationships Are Now Legally the Same as Marriage?

The judgment does not turn every live-in relationship into a marriage. Instead, it recognises that a relationship may possess the legal characteristics of a marriage-like domestic relationship for the limited purpose of applying the cruelty protection considered by the Court.

This is consistent with the approach already taken under the PWDVA, where Parliament expressly recognised “relationships in the nature of marriage” without declaring such relationships to be formal marriages. The distinction remains important because different statutes attach different rights, obligations and consequences to marriage.

What Can a Woman Do If She Faces Abuse in a Live-In Relationship?

The first step is to identify the nature of the relationship and the conduct complained of. If the relationship qualifies as a domestic relationship under the PWDVA, the woman may seek appropriate relief under the Act, including protection, residence, monetary relief, custody and compensation orders, depending on the circumstances.

Where the facts satisfy the requirements of criminal law, the relevant criminal provisions may also be invoked. Following the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling, a woman in a qualifying relationship in the nature of marriage cannot be told that criminal cruelty protection is unavailable merely because the parties did not have a formally valid marriage.

Evidence can also be important. Messages, medical records, photographs, financial records, evidence of shared residence, communications concerning the relationship and other documents may help establish both the nature of the relationship and the alleged conduct.

What Is the Legal Difference?

The legal position can be understood through one central distinction. A live-in relationship is not automatically a relationship in the nature of marriage, but a relationship in the nature of marriage is not legally irrelevant merely because the parties were never formally married.

Under the PWDVA, such a relationship may fall within Section 2(f) and therefore qualify as a domestic relationship. Following the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling, such a relationship may also attract protection under the Section 498A IPC cruelty framework where the relevant legal requirements are satisfied. Section 85 BNS is the corresponding provision under the current criminal law framework, although the 2026 judgment itself was rendered in a Section 498A IPC case.

The crucial point is therefore that a live-in relationship does not automatically become a marriage, but neither does the absence of formal marriage automatically remove legal protection against cruelty.

Conclusion

Indian law does not automatically treat every live-in relationship as a marriage. At the same time, the absence of a formal marriage certificate does not necessarily place a woman outside the protection of the law.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 expressly recognises relationships in the nature of marriage and provides a range of protective and remedial measures where its statutory requirements are satisfied. The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 784, marks an important development in criminal law by holding that Section 498A IPC can extend to a qualifying live-in relationship that is in the nature of marriage.

The Court’s reasoning focuses on the substance of the relationship and the protective purpose of the cruelty provision rather than allowing formal marital status alone to determine protection. At the same time, the judgment does not mean that every live-in partner can automatically be prosecuted for cruelty. The relationship must satisfy the relevant legal requirements, and the ingredients of cruelty must still be established.

The present position can therefore be summed up simply. Marriage is not the only relationship in which a woman may receive protection against domestic cruelty, but not every live-in relationship is a relationship in the nature of marriage. The facts, the nature of the relationship and the specific statutory provision invoked will determine the remedy available.