Merely living in relationship with another partner is not bigamy, says Karnataka HC, quashes case against 73-year

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a bigamy case filed by a 66-year-old woman against her 73-year-old husband, holding that his being merely in a relationship with another woman would not amount to marriage and therefore does not warrant charges under Indian Penal Code section 494.

The IPC section related to bigamy applies when a person marries another during the lifetime of his or her spouse.

The person shall then be punished with rigorous or simple imprisonment for up to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine.

Justice R Nataraj noted in his order on March 3 that the woman’s complaint before the magistrate only mentioned that the husband and the woman are living in an “illegal relationship”.

The order said, “It is now well settled that an offence under 494 of IPC would be attracted only when a person takes another in marriage during the lifetime of his/her spouse.

Mere living in a relationship does not amount to a marriage and therefore, an offence under Section 494 of IPC was not made out by the complainant.”
The woman alleged that her husband married the other woman, who is 51 years old, and that her two sons were supporting him.

Therefore, she requested the court to take cognisance of an offence punishable under IPC section 494, read with section 34 (common intention), against the sons as well.

The woman’s husband, sons, and the other woman approached the high court with a plea to quash the case after the trial court took cognisance of her complaint.

Senior advocate C R Gopalaswamy, appearing for the petitioners, argued that an offence under IPC section 494 could be registered only against the erring spouse and not their near relatives—including children.

Further, it was pointed out that the woman failed to disclose when her husband married the other woman.

Abetment not applicable in bigamy
The court said the erring spouse alone would be liable for prosecution and not anyone else, even if they have supported the accused in any manner whatsoever.

It thus emphasised that for an offence of bigamy, the provisions of IPC section 109 (punishment of abetment) cannot be invoked.

“The trial court, without going into the contours of Section 494 of IPC, erroneously took cognisance of the offence against accused Nos 2, 3, and 4,” it said.

Justice Nataraj said that it was incumbent upon the woman to plead and prove that her husband (accused No.1) had married the other woman (accused No.4)
The court further said the trial court had “erroneously proceeded on an assumption that accused No.1 and the other accused are complicit in an offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC”.