The Karnataka High Court quashed a bigamy case filed by wife against her 73-year-old husband and his live-in partner, concluding that their relationship could not attract the offence alleged. The Court remarked, “A mere live-in relationship does not amount to a marriage,”
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a bigamy complaint lodged by a 66-year-old woman against her 73-year-old husband and a woman with whom he was alleged to be in a live-in relationship.
The court observed that bigamy can arise only when a married person formally enters into another marriage while their spouse is still alive.
Justice R. Nataraj determined that the wife had not demonstrated that her husband had contracted a second marriage with the other woman.
Since a live-in relationship does not equate to marriage, the court concluded that the elements of bigamy were not present in this matter.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Bigamy Case Against Second Wife, Clarifies Legal Position
Consequently, the court set aside a lower court’s order that had taken cognizance of the wife’s complaint.
The Court ordered,
“Mere living in a relationship, does not amount to a marriage and therefore, an offence under Section 494 of IPC was not made out by the complainant. The Trial Court without considering the case from this stand point, has erroneously proceeded on an assumption that accused No.1 (husband) and the other accused are complicit in an offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC,”
The High Court also stayed criminal proceedings that had been launched against the children of the husband and the complainant.
The wife had accused her children of being passive observers of the supposed bigamous relationship and alleged they had abetted the offence.
The court clarified that under Section 494 (bigamy) of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by BNS), liability attaches only to the spouse who enters into the second marriage not to a live-in partner or to the couple’s children.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Bigamy Case Against Second Wife, Clarifies Legal Position
The Court held,
“The erring spouse who alone would be liable to be prosecuted and not anyone else, even if such person has supported the accused in any manner whatsoever … The trial Court without going into the contours of Section 494 of IPC, erroneously took cognizance of the offence against accused Nos.2, 3 (children of the complainant and her husband) and 4 (husband’s partner),”
Senior Advocate C.R. Gopalaswamy, assisted by advocate Bhargav G., appeared for the appellants. Advocate K. Shrihari represented the wife (respondent).