Second spouse, family members can't be prosecuted for bigamy: Karnataka HC

The high court has said that the second spouse or their family members cannot be prosecuted under section 494 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of bigamy.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj said this while quashing the proceedings against the parents and sister of the second wife.

The petitioners, residents of Hulugindi in Kadur taluk of Chikkamagaluru district, had challenged the proceedings initiated against them based on the complaint given by the first wife.

The complaint was against her husband, his friend, the second wife of her husband and also against the parents and sister of the said second wife. They were named on the ground that they had participated in the marriage, knowing well that the marriage with the complainant was subsisting.

It was argued by the petitioners that they cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under IPC section 494, merely because they had participated in the wedding ceremony. On the other hand, the complainant argued that the second marriage had taken place because of the participation of the petitioners, leading to offence under IPC section 494.

The court noted the provision, IPC section 494, and said it indicated that whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries during the life of such husband or wife shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend for seven years.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that in terms of the provision, it is only the person who marries during the subsistence and the life time of the earlier spouse and the earlier marriage could be prosecuted and punished for the offence of bigamy.

“The only allegation made in the complaint is that the petitioners have knowledge that the marriage is illegal and despite which they have participated. There is no averment made therein that they were aware of the subsisting marriage between the complainant and the husband or further, there is no allegation made regards the intention on part of the petitioners having involved themselves in a offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC or felicitated or abated the said offence,” the court said.