The Madras High Court has held that the standard of proof for establishing marriage in a Section 125 CrPC claim is lower than in a bigamy prosecution, and that the burden is on the husband to prove that an earlier marriage was subsisting.
Holding that liability under Section 82 of the BNS attaches to the spouse who already has a subsisting marriage and not to the person they marry, the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to a woman arrayed as the second accused, observing that on her case she and the complainant stand as two women wronged by the same man rather than as accused and victim.
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed bigamy charges against a woman, clarifying that Section 494 IPC only applies to individuals who remarry while already having a spouse. The court ruled the second wife cannot be prosecuted as she married without knowledge of the husband’s prior marriage, emphasizing that responsibility lies with those knowingly committing bigamy.
The Madras High Court ruled that Muslim women can claim damages from bigamous husbands, recognizing such actions as domestic violence. It clarified that if a woman disputes triple talaq, the man must seek judicial validation. The court emphasized only state-established courts can adjudicate on divorce matters, rejecting Shariat councils’ authority.
The Supreme Court is set to review whether alimony can be awarded when a marriage is declared void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Conflicting judgments have led to this matter being referred to a larger bench by a Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale. The issue will be resolved by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled against providing protection to married individuals seeking live-in relationships, citing the promotion of bigamy and undermining the rights of spouses and children. The court emphasized the significance of marriage and family as fundamental social institutions and criticized the petitioners for tarnishing their families’ reputations.