The Supreme Court sentenced a woman and her second husband to six months in jail for bigamy. To protect their six-year-old child, the court allowed them to serve their sentences alternately.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a man in a live-in relationship without legally ending his previous marriage may be committing the offence of bigamy under IPC Sections 494 and 495.
The Bombay High Court stated that a second marriage while the first marriage is still valid amounts not only to bigamy but also rape if done under false promises, and rejected a plea to dismiss the FIR.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a person is not guilty of bigamy if they marry again while a divorce appeal is pending, as long as the appeal is later dismissed.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC applies only to the husband who remarries during his existing marriage, and not to his second wife.
The Supreme Court sentenced a couple to six months in jail for bigamy but allowed them to serve alternate jail terms for the sake of their child. The Court stressed the need for proportionate punishment in social offences.
The High Court ruled that a second wife cannot be prosecuted for abetment to bigamy just for marrying a man already in a subsisting marriage. The court emphasized that there must be proof of active participation in the offense.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that bigamy under Section 494 IPC applies only to the husband remarrying during a valid marriage. The second wife cannot be held liable under this provision, clarifying her legal standing in such cases.
The Supreme Court sentenced a couple to six months in jail for bigamy but allowed them to serve their time alternately, ensuring one parent is always with their child. The Court criticized the earlier lenient sentence and stressed the need for appropriate punishment in serious cases.
The Supreme Court sentenced a woman and her second husband to six months in jail for bigamy, noting the gravity of the offense. The Court allowed alternate prison terms to ensure one parent stays with their child, marking an unusual but compassionate sentencing decision.
