The Rajasthan High Court clarifies that merely living with another partner does not constitute bigamy for a married person, unless a second marriage is formalized. This ruling follows a case where a man was accused of bigamy for cohabiting with another woman without remarriage.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court recently made an important observation regarding the offence of bigamy in India. In a case where a married man was accused of bigamy by his wife for living with another woman, the court clarified that the mere act of a married person living with another partner does not constitute the offence of bigamy, unless a second marriage has been solemnized.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur, while dealing with the case, stated that –
“The offense punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse (bigamy), would not occur unless a second marriage is conducted while the first marriage is still valid.”
The court observed that-
“Merely cohabiting with another person does not constitute bigamy for a married individual unless they enter into a second marriage.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rules: No Legal Immunity for Bigamy Despite Adultery’s Decriminalization
The judge further elaborated-
“It is established legal precedent that the offense under Section 494 IPC is applicable if a person solemnizes a marriage while either spouse is still alive. Mere cohabitation of a man and woman as husband and wife is not deemed an offense under Section 494 IPC unless a valid marriage has been conducted in accordance with the law.”
In the present case, a man (the petitioner) was charged with bigamy, cruelty, and other offences under the IPC based on a complaint filed by his wife. The man then approached the Rajasthan High Court, challenging the criminal proceedings pending against him.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no allegation that the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage with another woman by performing essential religious ceremonies. The wife (the complainant) had also stated that her husband was not married to another woman.
The counsel further contended that the wife had lodged the complaint of bigamy against the husband over twenty years after the alleged crime, solely to harass and humiliate him.
The counsel for the wife, however, argued that even if it were assumed that her husband was keeping another woman according to the customs of Nata marriage (a practice in which two persons can enter into a relationship similar to marriage without any legal and religious/social obligation), he would still be guilty of committing bigamy.
The Court, however, noted that there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner had entered into a second marriage with another woman.
ALSO READ: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules: Live-In Without Divorce Equals Bigamy
The Court stated-
“There is no evidence on record to establish whether the Nata marriage was conducted according to the marriage ceremonies mandated by the personal law governing the parties or by following the essential rituals for a Nata marriage.”
As such, the Court opined that the offence of bigamy was not established in this case. The Court, therefore, quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court against the accused man.
It’s important to highlight that the Rajasthan High Court‘s decision differs from the perspective presented by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which indicated that engaging in “a lustful and adulterous” lifestyle without obtaining a divorce from a previous spouse could lead to liability for the offense of bigamy.
Moreover, the Delhi High Court has also opined that the absence of a law making adultery an offence does not provide people blanket immunity from marrying other persons during the subsistence of one’s first marriage.
