Supreme Court Grapples With Dowry Law Application in Live-In Relationship Case
The Supreme Court of India has taken up a landmark case that questions whether a married man involved in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted for dowry harassment based on a complaint from his partner, despite existing laws specifying that only a wife can file such charges against her husband and his relatives. This legal conundrum has sparked significant debate about the interpretation of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in modern relationship contexts.
Legal Question at the Heart of the Case
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh entertained an appeal on Friday from Dr. Lokesh B H, a cardiologist challenging a Karnataka High Court order that rejected his plea to quash prosecution initiated against him. The prosecution stems from a complaint filed by his alleged live-in partner, Teertha, raising fundamental questions about the scope of dowry harassment laws.
The bench explicitly framed the central issue: "The pertinent question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether a man, who is in a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage with a woman, can be prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or its corresponding section in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita."
Court Seeks Expert Assistance and Government Response
Recognizing the complexity of the matter, the Supreme Court has taken several important steps:
- Sought an official response from the government on this significant legal issue
- Requested Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist the court with her expertise
- Appointed advocate Nina Nariman as amicus curiae to provide independent legal guidance
Background of the Contentious Case
The case involves Dr. Lokesh, who was legally married to Naveena in February 2000. According to court documents, another woman named Teertha claimed she married Lokesh in 2010, though this alleged relationship existed while Lokesh remained married to Naveena.
The legal timeline reveals a complex series of events:
- In 2015, Teertha lodged multiple police complaints against Lokesh, his mother, sister, and cousin, though these were eventually closed without prosecution
- In 2016, Teertha filed another complaint accusing Lokesh of attempting to burn her while demanding dowry
- Lokesh's employer provided certification that he was at his hospital workplace on the day of the alleged incident
- Teertha later initiated a domestic violence case against Lokesh
- Lokesh filed a suit in Bengaluru family court seeking a declaration that no marital relationship existed between him and Teertha, a case still pending
- In 2023, police filed a chargesheet against Lokesh for allegedly attempting to burn Teertha and demanding dowry
- The Karnataka High Court dismissed Lokesh's challenge to this chargesheet, leading to the current Supreme Court appeal
Legal Arguments and Section 498A Interpretation
Representing the petitioner, senior advocate Sanjay Nuli argued that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 498A. He contended that the law's "rigour" should not apply to live-in relationships, as the IPC section specifically envisages action against a husband by his wife.
Section 498A of the IPC clearly states: "Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to fine." The definition of cruelty under this section includes dowry demands, coercion, and various forms of ill-treatment.
The Supreme Court's examination of this case could potentially reshape how Indian law addresses relationships outside traditional marriage structures, particularly concerning protections against dowry harassment and domestic violence. The outcome may establish important precedents for similar cases involving live-in partnerships and extra-marital relationships in the future.
