This is an archive article published on March 30, 2024
‘Second wife’, kin not liable to be prosecuted in bigamy cases: Karnataka HC
A woman had lodged a complaint against her husband, his second wife and his family members for participating in the wedding ceremony even though they were aware of his first marriage.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the relatives should not be accused in the case as merely participating in the wedding ceremony did not attract the relevant provision. (File Photo)
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that only the person who got married for the second time despite a prior marriage being in effect would be liable to be prosecuted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with bigamy.
The order was passed on March 13 by a single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj based on the petition by the man who allegedly committed bigamy, his family members and his ‘second wife’. The man’s first wife had lodged a complaint against him, his ‘second wife’ and others for having knowledge of the continuance of the existing marriage and still participating in the ceremony.
Advertisement
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the relatives should not be accused in the case as merely participating in the wedding ceremony did not attract the relevant provision. The counsel for the opposing side stated that the high court should not intervene in the matter as it was open to the trial court to add sections pertaining to abetment. Further, it was argued that the bigamous marriage could not have taken place without the abetment of the family members.
The bench observed, “…it is only the person who marries during the subsistence and the lifetime of the earlier spouse and the earlier marriage could be prosecuted and punished for the offences punishable under Section 494 of IPC… The said provision does not even contemplate the person to whom the husband or wife has married to be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC. Let alone the father, mother and sister who had participated in or attended the wedding.”
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the relatives should not be accused in the case as merely participating in the wedding ceremony did not attract the relevant provision. (File Photo) 
Share
