When can a live-in relationship attract 498A, what proves an intention to marry, and what legal safeguards protect men and their families from vague allegations and automatic arrest?
NEW DELHI: Thousands of couples in India live together believing that Section 498A cannot apply to a live-in relationship because no formal marriage took place. That belief can now expose not only the man, but also his parents and relatives, to criminal proceedings.
A live-in relationship is not automatically treated as marriage under Indian law. However, where the relationship shows the essential features of marriage, including a shared household, public conduct as spouses and a genuine intention to marry, the man may face allegations under Section 498A IPC or related provisions.
This does not mean that every girlfriend can convert a breakup, failed promise or relationship dispute into a criminal case.
A romantic relationship, physical intimacy, occasional cohabitation or a unilateral expectation of marriage is not enough. The complainant must establish that the relationship was genuinely in the nature of marriage and that the alleged conduct amounted to legally defined cruelty.
The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code has added another evidentiary layer by requiring registration of covered live-in relationships. However, UCC live-in registration is not a marriage certificate and does not automatically prove cruelty, dowry demand or the involvement of the man’s family.
For men and their relatives, the real legal battle will depend on evidence, intention, the nature of cohabitation and strict arrest safeguards, not merely on the label of a relationship.
WHAT IS SECTION 498A?
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code punished a husband or his relative for subjecting a woman to legally defined cruelty.
The corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are:
- Section 85 BNS: punishment for cruelty by a husband or his relative.
- Section 86 BNS: definition of cruelty.
The punishment may extend to three years’ imprisonment and fine.
Cruelty under Section 86 BNS includes:
- Wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her physical or mental health; or
- Harassment intended to coerce her or her relatives into meeting an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.
Therefore, every quarrel, disagreement, breakup or unpleasant relationship does not satisfy the statutory definition.
For alleged acts committed before July 1, 2024, Section 498A IPC may continue to govern the prosecution. For later conduct, Sections 85 and 86 BNS will ordinarily be examined, depending upon the allegations and applicable savings provisions.
ARE LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS LEGAL IN INDIA?
A live-in relationship between consenting adults is not, by itself, a criminal offence.
However, Indian law distinguishes between:
- A casual romantic or sexual relationship;
- Occasional cohabitation;
- A domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act; and
- A relationship in the nature of marriage.
Only the last category closely resembles a marital union.
A relationship does not acquire marital status merely because the parties dated for several years or spent substantial time together.
The court examines how the parties actually lived, represented themselves and planned their future.
WHAT IS A “RELATIONSHIP IN THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE”?
In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469, the Supreme Court explained that a marriage-like relationship may require the parties to:
- Hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses;
- Be of legal marriageable age;
- Be otherwise legally qualified to marry;
- Cohabit voluntarily for a significant period; and
- Live in a shared household.
The Court clarified that merely spending weekends together or having a one-night relationship would not create such a domestic relationship.
In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, the Supreme Court identified additional indicators:
- Duration of the relationship;
- Shared household;
- Pooling of financial resources;
- Domestic arrangements;
- Emotional and sexual relationship;
- Children;
- Public socialisation as spouses; and
- Intention and conduct of the parties.
These factors are illustrative, not an automatic checklist. No single photograph, hotel stay, joint trip or isolated message proves a marriage-like relationship.
WHY INTENTION TO MARRY HAS BECOME CRUCIAL
The most disputed question will often be:
Did both parties intend to convert the relationship into marriage?
The law now requires more than the complainant’s unilateral belief that marriage would eventually happen.
The evidence must indicate that the relationship itself carried a genuine intention to marry. A vague statement such as “we will see later,” emotional reassurance during a relationship or discussions without concrete steps may not establish a settled mutual intention.
There is also a difference between:
- A relationship entered into with an intention to marry;
- A relationship in which marriage was merely discussed;
- A consensual relationship that later ended; and
- A relationship allegedly induced through deception.
These categories cannot be merged merely because the relationship failed.
EVIDENCE THAT MAY SUPPORT AN INTENTION TO MARRY
The Supreme Court has not created a closed evidentiary checklist. Nevertheless, the following contemporaneous material may become relevant:
- Engagement photographs or ceremony records;
- Wedding bookings or vendor payments;
- Messages containing definite marriage plans;
- Communications between both families;
- Joint applications for housing or relocation;
- Public representation as husband and wife;
- Joint financial planning;
- Nomination or insurance records;
- Long-term shared household documents;
- Discussions concerning children or permanent settlement;
- Evidence that both parties were legally free and willing to marry.
The central question is not whether one-person hoped-for marriage. The question is whether the conduct of both parties objectively demonstrated a marriage-like relationship accompanied by an intention to marry.
EVIDENCE THAT MAY WEAKEN A 498A LIVE-IN CLAIM
The defence may rely upon records showing:
- The parties maintained separate permanent residences;
- Finances and household responsibilities remained independent;
- The relationship was expressly described as non-marital;
- One party repeatedly rejected marriage;
- The complainant knew that the man was already married;
- No family introduction or marriage planning occurred;
- Alleged marriage discussions appeared only after separation;
- The parties met occasionally rather than maintaining a shared household;
- Messages contradict the dates or incidents mentioned in the complaint;
- Relatives had no contact with, or role in, the relationship.
Evidence must be preserved lawfully.
Deleting chats, fabricating screenshots, accessing another person’s account without permission or circulating private material can destroy an otherwise valid defence and create additional criminal exposure.
LATEST SUPREME COURT UPDATE: 498A CAN COVER CERTAIN LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
On August 3, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 INSC 784.
The case reached the Supreme Court after the Karnataka High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings. The accused argued that Section 498A could not apply because there was no legally valid marriage.
The Supreme Court held that Section 498A may apply where:
- The live-in relationship qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage;
- The parties are consenting adults; and
- An intention to marry is established as an intrinsic part of the relationship.
The initial burden of establishing the required intention lies upon the female live-in partner seeking protection. Since the provision creates criminal liability, the Court required a higher evidentiary threshold than ordinarily applicable to civil relief under the Domestic Violence Act.
It therefore restricted the ruling to qualifying marriage-like relationships and expressly stated that its interpretation was limited to Section 498A IPC only. It did not automatically extend the ruling to every other statutory provision.
UCC IMPACT ON LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP CASES
The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code requires registration of covered live-in relationships. Such registration may become relevant evidence in future 498A, Section 85 BNS or domestic violence proceedings.
It may help establish:
- The identity of the partners;
- The declared period of cohabitation;
- Shared residence;
- Marital status; and
- The date of termination.
However, a live-in registration certificate is not a marriage certificate. It does not automatically prove an intention to marry, dowry demand, cruelty or involvement of the man’s relatives.
From a defence perspective, the same registration record may help establish the correct timeline, separate residence of relatives and the exact nature of the relationship.
Therefore, UCC registration should be treated as supporting evidence, not conclusive proof of marriage or criminal cruelty. The Uttarakhand UCC position is also state-specific and does not presently apply throughout India.
DOES THE JUDGMENT AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO SECTION 85 BNS?
This requires caution.
Sections 85 and 86 BNS substantially reproduce the former cruelty offence. However, the Supreme Court expressly limited its ruling to Section 498A IPC and stated that the extended interpretation would not affect another provision.
Prosecutors may argue that the same reasoning should eventually apply to Section 85 BNS because of the similar statutory language.
The defence can rely upon the Supreme Court’s express limitation.
Until the Supreme Court or a larger body of authoritative precedent clarifies the issue, it would be inaccurate to state that every qualifying live-in relationship automatically attracts Section 85 BNS.
CAN THE MAN’S PARENTS AND RELATIVES ALSO BE ACCUSED?
In practice, complaints frequently name parents, siblings and other relatives. Relationship alone does not establish criminal liability.
A complaint should disclose:
- The relative’s specific role;
- The alleged words or conduct;
- Approximate dates and locations;
- Connection with the unlawful demand or cruelty;
- Manner in which the relative participated.
In the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Supreme Court warned courts to scrutinise exaggerated allegations and the tendency to implicate the husband’s immediate relatives.
In the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Court held that a casual reference to relatives without allegations of active involvement may be insufficient.
In the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court reiterated that vague and omnibus allegations against relatives should not be permitted to become the basis of a criminal trial.
A separately residing parent or sibling should preserve employment records, address proof, medical records, travel documents and communications showing the absence of involvement.
CAN POLICE ARREST THE MAN IMMEDIATELY?
An FIR does not create an automatic right to arrest.
In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Supreme Court held that arrest must not be made mechanically merely because the offence is cognisable and non-bailable.
The police officer must examine whether arrest is necessary, record reasons and comply with the statutory arrest conditions.
The Court’s principle remains clear:
“No arrest can be made in a routine manner.”
Under the present procedural framework, police must also examine the requirements of Section 35 BNSS, including whether arrest is genuinely necessary or a notice of appearance would be sufficient.
LEGAL SAFEGUARDS FOR MEN FACING A LIVE-IN 498A CASE
- Preserve the Entire Communication Record
Keep full chats, emails, call records, photographs, tenancy papers and financial documents.
Selected screenshots without context may be challenged. Complete conversations provide the chronology.
- Prepare a Detailed Relationship Timeline
Record:
- Date the relationship began;
- Periods of actual cohabitation;
- Residences occupied;
- Marriage discussions;
- Family involvement;
- Financial arrangements;
- Date disputes began;
- Date of separation; and
- Date criminal allegations were first raised.
- Separate the Partner’s Case from the Relatives’ Case
The man’s defence and the relatives’ defence may be different.
Parents and siblings should independently establish their residence, lack of contact and absence from alleged incidents.
- Comply with Lawful Police Notices
Ignoring a notice may unnecessarily strengthen an arrest request.
Attend through a documented and legally advised process. Submit relevant documents with a proper covering representation.
- Consider Anticipatory Bail
Where arrest is apprehended, anticipatory bail may be sought based upon:
- Lack of a valid marriage-like relationship;
- Absence of mutual intention to marry;
- Contradictory allegations;
- Delay in the complaint;
- Documentary evidence;
- Separate residence of relatives;
- Cooperation with investigation; and
- Non-requirement of custodial interrogation.
- Examine Quashing or Discharge Carefully
Quashing is possible where the complaint, even if accepted, does not disclose the legal ingredients of the offence or contains manifestly vague allegations.
However, disputed facts requiring evidence are ordinarily left for trial.
The remedy must therefore be selected from the actual stage of the case: anticipatory bail, quashing, discharge or trial.
COMMON MISTAKES MEN MUST AVOID
Men often weaken their own defence by:
- Deleting chats after a breakup;
- Making emotional or threatening calls;
- Ignoring police notices;
- Relying only on selected screenshots;
- Failing to preserve proof of separate residence;
- Allowing parents or relatives to respond directly to the complainant; and
- Assuming that absence of marriage automatically prevents criminal proceedings.
A man facing allegations should preserve the complete record, avoid direct confrontation and respond only through a documented legal strategy.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE AND 498A CASE ARE DIFFERENT
A woman in a qualifying relationship in the nature of marriage may seek civil and protective relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Such relief may include:
- Protection orders;
- Residence orders;
- Monetary relief;
- Compensation; and
- Temporary custody.
Section 498A, on the other hand, creates criminal liability and possible imprisonment.
Therefore, qualification under the DV Act does not automatically prove a 498A offence. The prosecution must separately establish the required marriage-like relationship, intention to marry and legally defined cruelty.
CONCLUSION
Section 498A does not apply to every live-in relationship.
The prosecution must first establish that the relationship was genuinely in the nature of marriage, that the parties intended to marry, and that the alleged conduct satisfied the statutory definition of cruelty.
Supreme Court ruling expands legal exposure, but it also creates clear restrictions:
- Not every live-in relationship qualifies;
- Intention to marry must be established;
- The initial burden lies upon the complainant;
- Relatives cannot be implicated through vague allegations;
- Arrest cannot be mechanical; and
- Preliminary enquiries are mandatory before arrest in such cases.
For men, the strongest protection is not social-media outrage or emotional confrontation.It is an organised record of the relationship, lawful preservation of evidence and immediate legal strategy.
FAQs
- Can a girlfriend file a 498A case against her boyfriend?
Not merely because they were in a relationship. She must first prove a marriage-like relationship, intention to marry and legally defined cruelty.
- Is living together enough to attract 498A?
No. Cohabitation alone does not make a man a husband. The court must examine the entire nature of the relationship.
- Can a failed relationship be converted into a 498A case?
No. A breakup, refusal to marry or emotional dispute is not automatically criminal cruelty.
- Can police arrest the man and his family immediately?
No. Arrest cannot be mechanical. Police must follow the Arnesh Kumar safeguards and examine the specific role of every accused.
- Does UCC registration make the boyfriend a husband under 498A?
No. Registration may prove cohabitation, but it does not automatically prove marriage, cruelty or involvement of his relatives.
