Relationship in the Nature of Marriage

'Relationship in the nature of marriage' is a legal category describing a live-in cohabitation that resembles marriage in social and functional substance, even though no formal marriage ceremony has taken place. It was first given statutory recognition in Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which defined 'domestic relationship' to expressly include such relationships, entitling a woman in one to civil and protective remedies, protection orders, residence orders and monetary relief, without requiring proof of a solemnised marriage. The Supreme Court supplied the operative test for identifying such a relationship in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010): the couple must hold themselves out to society as spouses, be of legal age to marry, be otherwise qualified to marry (including being unmarried), and must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out as spouses for a significant period. Until 2026, this category operated only in civil law. In Dr. Lokesh B.H. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another (2026 INSC 784), the Supreme Court carried the category across into criminal law, holding that a man in a relationship in the nature of marriage can be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), on the reasoning that the distinction between a married woman and a woman in such a relationship bears no rational nexus to the object of preventing domestic cruelty, and therefore violates Article 14. The 2026 extension is confined: the woman must additionally establish that both parties intended to marry.

• 1 First statutorily recognised in Section 2(f), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for civil/protective remedies only.
• 2 D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) laid down the four-part test: holding out as spouses, legal age to marry, otherwise qualified to marry, and significant period of cohabitation.
• 3 Extended to criminal law in Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 784), allowing Section 498A IPC/Section 85 BNS prosecution against a live-in partner.
• 4 The 2026 extension requires proof of two conditions: relationship akin to marriage, and both parties' intention to marry.
• 5 Grounded in Article 14: a classification with no rational nexus to a law's object is arbitrary.
• 6 Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) laid down safeguards against automatic arrest under Section 498A, relevant to how the extension may be applied.
• 7 Distinct from the Uniform Civil Code debate, though both intersect on the legal recognition of non-marital cohabitation.

The 2026 Supreme Court ruling meant that a woman could invoke Section 498A against a live-in partner for the first time, provided she established the relationship was in the nature of marriage and that both parties had intended to marry.