New Delhi- In an order passed on February 13, 2026, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh framed the core issue while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Lokesh B.H. and others challenging a November 18, 2025, judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CRP Nos. 8134/2024 and 9412/2024.

The petitioners are contesting criminal proceedings initiated against them, including charges under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a married woman), based on allegations from a woman with whom the petitioner was allegedly in a live-in relationship. The case involves claims of cruelty, dowry harassment, and related offences.

The Supreme Court explicitly observed:

Section 498A IPC traditionally applies to cruelty inflicted by a husband or his relatives on a wife. The question before the apex court is whether the term "husband" can extend to partners in non-formal marital unions, particularly those resembling marriage (as recognized in some prior judgments under laws like the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005).

To aid in resolving this significant issue with broader implications, the Court directed:

• Impleadment of the Union of India (through the Ministry of Law and Justice) as a party respondent.

• Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, to assist the Court on behalf of the Union.

• Appointment of Nina R. Nariman, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae (pro bono) to provide assistance.

• Filing of counter affidavits by respondents within two weeks, with rejoinders if any.

• Issuance of notice to the second respondent (via the concerned Station House Officer), with dasti service permitted.

• Supply of the complete digital paper book to the amicus curiae and ASG within three working days.

Importantly, the Supreme Court granted interim relief by staying all further proceedings in the underlying case until the next hearing.

The matter has been listed for further consideration on March 9, 2026.

This development comes amid ongoing debates about the scope and potential misuse of Section 498A, with earlier High Court rulings (such as from Kerala) holding that live-in partners do not fall within its ambit, as the provision explicitly refers to a "husband." The Supreme Court's final interpretation could clarify protections (or their absence) for women in live-in arrangements under cruelty and dowry harassment laws.