On July 15, the Supreme Court sentenced a woman and her second husband to six months in jail for committing bigamy. The Court took an unusual approach to sentencing, considering that the couple has a six-year-old child and allowing them to serve their sentences alternately so that one parent is always with the child.
The case revolved around a woman who remarried while her first marriage was still legally valid. Her first husband filed a complaint, challenging the August 2022 Madras High Court judgment, which had sentenced the woman and her second husband to “imprisonment till the rising of the court.” The Supreme Court criticized this as a “flea-bite sentence,” saying it did not match the seriousness of the offense.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of giving a punishment that fits the crime, particularly in cases like bigamy, which can affect society at large. The bench stated, “Lenient sentences for serious offenses like bigamy undermine societal trust in the legal system.” The court stressed that sentencing should reflect the gravity of the offense, the circumstances, and the offender’s conduct.
Bigamy falls under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which allows for a maximum sentence of seven years in jail. Although the offense can be settled if the spouse of the accused agrees, the court must give its approval. The provision remains part of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the IPC on July 1.
The Supreme Court noted that the woman had received alimony from her first husband until two months before giving birth to her second husband’s child, and that she had married the second husband while her first marriage was still active. The court concluded that the original sentence was “unconscionably lenient.”
Given these facts, the Supreme Court increased the punishment to six months in jail for both the woman and her second husband. However, recognizing the couple’s responsibility toward their child, the Court allowed them to serve their sentences one after the other, ensuring the child would always have one parent present. The bench stated, “This arrangement is not to be considered a precedent, as it was made under special circumstances.”
The Court’s decision strikes a balance between ensuring justice and considering the welfare of the child, showing the judiciary’s flexibility in handling sensitive family law cases.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
