Introduction
The Madras High Court has held that a woman who married a man without knowing that he was already married cannot be prosecuted for bigamy under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) merely because she entered into the subsequent marriage. The Court also held that a second wife does not fall within the expression “relative of the husband” under Section 85 BNS, which corresponds to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice N. Ramesh passed the order while considering a petition for anticipatory bail filed by a woman accused in a case registered by an All Women Police Station. The case arose from a complaint filed by the man’s first wife.
The petitioner claimed that she had no knowledge of the existing marriage when she married the man. She submitted that the fact had been concealed from her and that she had herself been deceived by the husband rather than knowingly participating in any offence.
Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Court was whether a woman who was unaware of her husband’s existing marriage could be prosecuted under Section 82 BNS, which deals with marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse.
Section 82 BNS corresponds to Sections 494 and 495 IPC. It penalises a person who marries again during the subsistence of an earlier marriage in circumstances covered by the provision. It also provides enhanced punishment where the fact of the former marriage is concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted.
The Court also examined whether the second wife could be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 85 BNS, which corresponds to Section 498A IPC. The provision applies to cruelty inflicted upon a woman by her “husband or relative of the husband”.
The question was therefore whether the second wife could legally be treated as a “relative of the husband” simply because she had married the same man.
Court Ruling
The High Court held that, on the plain language of Section 82 BNS, the person who already has a living spouse and subsequently marries is the offender contemplated by the provision. A woman who was herself unmarried and married such a person without knowing about the subsisting marriage does not become an offender merely by entering into that marriage.
The Court observed that the second wife could not be implicated under Section 82 without material showing that she had knowledge of the existing marriage or otherwise participated in the offence. In the present case, her claim that she was unaware of the first marriage was a matter for investigation. However, the Court found that custodial interrogation was not necessary in relation to Section 82(2).
On the allegation of cruelty, the Court held that Section 85 BNS is not a general provision covering every person connected with a marital dispute. It specifically applies to the husband and persons who stand in the relationship of a relative to the husband, ordinarily through blood, marriage or adoption.
The Court held that a second wife does not become a “relative of the husband” merely because she married him. It relied on the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Sagari Hembram v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 10278, where proceedings under Sections 498A, 494, 406 and 506 IPC against a second wife were quashed on similar reasoning.
The Madras High Court observed that the reasoning in that case applied equally to Section 85 BNS. It further noted that, on the facts presented, both women had been deceived by the husband, as the petitioner claimed that she had not been informed about the existing marriage.
The Court consequently found that the petitioner had made out a case for anticipatory bail and allowed the petition subject to conditions.
Implications
The decision clarifies the scope of Sections 82 and 85 BNS in cases involving a subsequent marriage. A second spouse does not automatically become criminally liable for bigamy simply because she married a person whose earlier marriage was still subsisting, particularly where she claims that the existing marriage was concealed from her.
The ruling also makes clear that a second wife cannot be treated as a “relative of the husband” under Section 85 BNS merely because of her marriage to the same man. The provision specifically limits prosecution for cruelty to the husband or persons who fall within the legal relationship of the husband’s relatives.
The judgment also highlights the different positions of the first and second wives in such circumstances. Where the husband conceals his existing marriage from the second woman, the Court recognised that she could herself have been deceived by the same conduct.
Since the matter concerned anticipatory bail, the observations were made while determining whether the petitioner required protection from arrest. The Court’s order does not amount to a final trial judgment on every factual allegation against the petitioner.
Case Title: Rajalakshmi v. The State
