Madras High Court Clarifies Position on Unaware Second Wife in Bigamy and Cruelty Cases
The Madras High Court has unequivocally held that a woman who is unaware of her husband's prior marriage cannot be prosecuted for the offence of bigamy, as stipulated under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which corresponds to Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Furthermore, the Court ruled that such a woman does not fall within the ambit of a 'relative of the husband' and therefore cannot be charged with cruelty under Section 85 of the BNS, which corresponds to Section 498A of the IPC.
Justice N. Ramesh, presiding over the matter, observed that the provisions concerning bigamy are specifically directed at the individual who enters into a subsequent marriage while a valid first marriage subsists and the spouse is still living. The Court clarified that a person who is herself unmarried and marries such an individual, without knowledge of the existing marriage, does not thereby become an offender under Section 82 of the BNS. The Court emphasised that in such circumstances, both women involved are victims of deception by the husband, rather than one being an accused and the other a victim.
The ruling was delivered in the context of an anticipatory bail petition filed by a woman who sought protection from arrest in a case registered by the All Women Police Station. The complaint, lodged by the husband's first wife, alleged offences under various sections of the BNS, including Sections 82 and 85. The petitioner contended that she had no knowledge of her husband's first marriage at the time of their union, asserting that this crucial fact was concealed from her. She argued that she was, in fact, deceived and was not a participant in any offence, leading to her false implication in the case.
Addressing the charge of bigamy, the Madras High Court noted that Section 82 of the BNS punishes the person who contracts a second marriage during the lifetime of their spouse. The provision also enhances punishment if the offender conceals the fact of the former marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted. The Court concluded that, based on a plain reading of the section, only the spouse who has remarried can be prosecuted for bigamy. The second spouse cannot be implicated without concrete evidence demonstrating her knowledge or active participation in the concealment.
Regarding the charge of cruelty under Section 85 of the BNS, the Court reiterated that this provision punishes cruelty inflicted upon a woman by her 'husband or relative of the husband'. Justice Ramesh clarified that this provision is not of general application but is confined to the husband and individuals related to him, typically by blood, marriage, or adoption. The Court held that an unaware second wife does not qualify as a 'relative of the husband' for the purpose of this section, as she too has been deceived by the husband regarding his marital status.
In support of its reasoning, the Madras High Court referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in Sagari Hembram v. State of West Bengal and Anr., where proceedings under Section 498A IPC, among others, were quashed against a second wife. The Calcutta High Court had similarly held that the offence under Section 494 IPC (bigamy) applies only to the person who marries a second time during the subsistence of a valid marriage, and not to the person with whom that marriage is contracted. The Madras High Court affirmed that this reasoning applies with equal force to Section 85 of the BNS.
Considering the petitioner's plea of lack of knowledge regarding the first marriage, the Court determined that she was not an offender under Section 82(1) of the BNS. Furthermore, the Court found that custodial interrogation of the petitioner for Section 82(2) of the BNS was unnecessary, as the assertion of want of knowledge was a matter for investigation. Concluding that the petitioner had established a valid case for anticipatory bail, the Madras High Court allowed the plea, subject to certain conditions.
The case was titled Rajalakshmi v. The State, with the citation 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 445. Mr. S. Parthibarajan appeared as counsel for the petitioner, while Mr. R. Rajasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side), represented the respondent.