Court holds that absence of proof of a second marriage defeats prosecution under Section 494 IPC, proceedings against husband, alleged partner, and children set aside.
The Karnataka High Court, through a Single Judge Bench of Justice R. Nataraj, delivered the judgment in early March 2026, quashing criminal proceedings initiated against a 73-year-old man, his alleged partner, and his children.
Case Title
Criminal Petition No. 470/2019 & connected matters
Background and Legal Issue
The case arose from a private complaint filed by a 66-year-old woman alleging that her husband had entered into a second marriage while their marital relationship subsisted. She further alleged that her husband’s sons and the woman purported to be his second wife supported the relationship and were complicit in the alleged offence.
Based on the complaint, a trial court in Mysuru took cognisance of offences under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises bigamy, read with Section 34 IPC (common intention).
The principal legal issue before the High Court was whether mere cohabitation or a live-in relationship with another woman, without proof of a legally valid second marriage, constitutes an offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
Proceedings Before the High Court
The accused persons, including the husband, his children, and the alleged partner, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. They contended that the complaint did not disclose any material indicating that a valid second marriage had taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage.
It was argued that the allegations only referred to an “illicit” or “illegal relationship” and did not specify when or where any marriage was solemnised. The petitioners also challenged the inclusion of the children and the alleged partner as accused persons under the provisions of the IPC.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The High Court examined the scope of Section 494 IPC and reiterated that the offence of bigamy is attracted only when a person contracts a second marriage during the lifetime of a legally wedded spouse.
The Court noted that the complaint lacked essential particulars required to establish the existence of a second marriage. It observed that there was no clear pleading regarding the date, place, or circumstances of any such marriage, nor any supporting material to substantiate the allegation.
The Bench emphasised that mere cohabitation or a live-in relationship, even if socially or morally contentious, does not amount to a valid marriage in law. Consequently, such a relationship cannot, by itself, constitute the offence of bigamy.
The Court further clarified that the offence under Section 494 IPC is limited to the “erring spouse” and does not extend to third parties. It held that the provisions relating to abetment could not be invoked to implicate the alleged partner or the children in a bigamy charge.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on settled legal principles, including precedent affirming that abetment provisions are not applicable in cases of bigamy where the statute specifically identifies the offender.
Final Ruling
The High Court held that the trial court had erred in taking cognisance of the offence without sufficient material establishing the essential ingredients of bigamy.
Accordingly, it quashed the criminal proceedings against all accused persons, including the husband, his alleged partner, and his children, holding that no prima facie case under Section 494 IPC was made out.
Practical Implications
The ruling reinforces that criminal liability for bigamy requires strict proof of a legally valid second marriage. Allegations of extramarital or live-in relationships, without evidence of marriage, do not meet the statutory threshold for prosecution.
The judgment also clarifies the limited scope of liability under Section 494 IPC by affirming that only the spouse who allegedly contracts a second marriage can be prosecuted, and not third parties such as family members or partners.
Additionally, the decision serves as guidance for trial courts to carefully scrutinise complaints before taking cognisance, particularly in matrimonial disputes where allegations may be based on suspicion rather than legally provable facts.
The judgment adds clarity on the distinction between live-in relationships and legally recognised marriages for the purpose of prosecuting offences of bigamy under criminal law.
