The Karnataka High Court has declared that bigamy remains an offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even if the wife consents to her husband’s subsequent marriages. This observation was made by a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing a petition from a 76-year-old man and his third wife, who sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the man’s first wife.
The case began with the marriage of the first petitioner (the husband) and the respondent (the first wife) in 1968. In 1972-73, with the respondent’s consent, the husband married her sister, Savitramma. Later, in 1993, the husband married the second petitioner (the third wife), Smt. Varalakshmi, again with the consent of his first and second wives.
It was claimed that the husband’s properties were equally divided among all his wives and that they lived together peacefully. However, in 2018, the first wife filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), alleging offenses under Section 494 of the IPC for bigamy, Section 109 of the IPC for abetment, and Section 34 of the IPC for common intention. She also filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2015.
The Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners (the husband and his third wife) under Section 204 of the CrPC. The husband argued that the first wife was aware of and consented to his subsequent marriages. He also pointed out that the complaint was registered 25 years after his third marriage and 45 years after his second marriage.
However, the first wife contended that she was unaware of the husband’s marriage to the third wife. She argued that the husband’s actions constituted bigamy, a continuing offense, and there could be no delay in filing such cases.
Referring to similar cases, such as State Of Bihar V. Deokaran Nenshi And Another (1972), the court stated, “Several other High Courts have also taken the similar view that bigamy is a continuing offense. The first petitioner has contracted second and third marriages during the subsistence of the first marriage. Therefore, he is guilty under Section 494 of the IPC.”
The court also noted that while the petitioners (the husband and his wives) were fully aware of each other’s marriages, the other family members or friends could not be implicated unless there was evidence they facilitated the subsequent marriages.
The court concluded, “The proceedings against the husband and his third wife will continue. However, dragging other family members and friends into these proceedings without clear evidence would be an abuse of the process of law.”
Thus, the petition by the man and his third wife was dismissed, reinforcing the stance that bigamy is an offense under Section 494 IPC, regardless of consent.
Case Title: ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA
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==
