Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that a person who is single and marries another whose marriage is subsisting cannot be held liable under Section 494 IPC (bigamy). It is the person whose marriage is already in existence who would be liable under the provision. The judgment was delivered by Justice Arvind Kumar Verma in Dr. Manju Sinha v. Smt. Pyari Dadsena, where the Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner (second wife) under Section 494 IPC.

Court’s Observations

Interpreting the scope of Section 494 IPC, the Court explicitly stated: “In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that this petitioner was already married by the time she married. A person who is single marrying another whose marriage is substituting is not liable under Section 494 IPC, but the person whose marriage is substituting would be liable.” The Court further emphasized:“A bare perusal of Section 494 IPC makes it crystal clear that the word used by the Legislature is ‘whoever, having a husband or wife living’ commits bigamy, and in the later half, it fixes liability against the ‘such husband or wife,’ expressing the intention of the Legislature to prosecute the erring husband/wife, as the case may be.”

Legal Provision: Section 494 IPC

Section 494 IPC (Marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife) states: "Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." Thus, the provision applies only to individuals who are already married and enter into a second marriage without dissolving the first. It does not extend liability to the person who was unmarried at the time of marriage.

Case Background

The complainant married Nagendra Kumar Dadsena on May 18, 2006, and they had a daughter in 2009. The complainant alleged that she was harassed by her husband and his family and was later ousted from her matrimonial home in November 2012 due to her husband’s second marriage. She later discovered that her husband had married the petitioner (Dr. Manju Sinha) on May 11, 2011, at Arya Samaj Temple, Raipur, without obtaining a divorce. After failing to get an FIR registered, she filed a criminal complaint under Sections 498-A, 494, and 34 IPC against her husband, the second wife, and two others. The petitioner sought to quash the criminal case against her, arguing that Section 494 IPC does not contemplate the prosecution of the second wife.

Court’s Ruling

The Court held that: The second wife cannot be prosecuted under Section 494 IPC since the provision applies only to the person whose first marriage is still subsisting. The petitioner had no prior knowledge of the first marriage when she entered into matrimony with the accused-husband. Continuing prosecution against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Cause Title: X v/s Y 

Case No: CRMP No. 2197 of 2024

Date: January-24-2025

Bench: Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

[Read/Download order]