 "Married man living with unwed partner not guilty of bigamy: Rajasthan HC")
The Rajasthan High Court clarified that the offence of bigamy does not apply if a married individual cohabits with another partner without formally solemnising a second marriage. The ruling, delivered by Justice Kuldeep Mathur, came in response to a case where a married man faced accusations of bigamy by his wife for residing with another woman, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
Justice Mathur emphasised that the offence outlined in Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to remarrying during the lifetime of a spouse, only applies if a second marriage is formally conducted while the first marriage remains valid. Merely living together does not constitute bigamy unless a valid second marriage is legally performed.
It must be noted, however, that courts in other jurisdictions have expressed varying opinions on similar matters. For instance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that individuals leading a ‘lustful and adulterous’ life without obtaining a divorce could be liable for bigamy. Conversely, the Delhi High Court had recently stated that the absence of laws criminalising adultery does not provide immunity from bigamy charges.
“It is established in law that the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC is applicable if a marriage is solemnised during the lifetime of either spouse. Mere cohabitation of a man and a woman as husband and wife does not constitute an offence under Section 494 IPC unless a valid marriage is conducted in accordance with the law,” the Court stated in its order dated May 7.
The case in question involved a petitioner charged with bigamy, cruelty, and other offences under the IPC following a complaint by his wife. The petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings, arguing that there was no allegation or evidence of a second marriage being solemnised through essential religious ceremonies. Furthermore, the petitioner’s wife confirmed that her husband was not married to the other woman.
The Court noted the absence of evidence to prove that the petitioner had entered into a second marriage. Additionally, it highlighted the lack of proof that ‘Nata’ marriage customs, a practice allowing two individuals to form a marriage-like relationship without legal or religious obligations, had been followed. As a result, the Court concluded that the offence of bigamy was not established, leading to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.