Mere Knowledge Of Second Marriage Insufficient To Implicate Relatives In Bigamy Offence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 24) held that relatives cannot be fastened with liability for the offence of bigamy merely based on their knowledge of the second marriage. The Court said that unless it is shown that the relatives have actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of second marriage, they cannot be held liable for bigamy.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih quashed the proceedings under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband's relatives, including his father, mother, and sister, who the complainant-wife had accused of subjecting her to cruelty and encouraging the husband to contract a second marriage.

The case arose from an FIR registered in 2016 by a woman alleging prolonged cruelty, dowry harassment, and her husband's second marriage. While detailed allegations—including physical assault, monetary demands, and deception—were made against the husband, the accusations against the in-laws were largely limited to claims of “presence” during incidents and general “encouragement” of the husband's conduct to do bigamy.

The complainant further alleged that the in-laws were aware of the husband's second marriage and had benefited from dowry-related payments and sale of gold ornaments. Based on these claims, charges were invoked under Sections 498A (cruelty), 494 (bigamy), and 34 (common intention) IPC.

After the trial court proceeded with the case and the Kerala High Court declined to intervene under its inherent powers, the in-laws approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Masih emphatically noted that mere knowledge of a second marriage would not attract the offence of bigamy unless an active participation is shown that the accused persons have assisted in the solemnisation of a second marriage.

Since, the prosecution was not able to show an active participation of the Appellants for aiding the second marriage of the husband, the Court termed the wife's allegations to be bald and vague, made without any justification.

“While it has been alleged that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, mere knowledge that an act is being or has been committed by another person does not, by itself, establish the requisite common intention. Even proceeding on the basis that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, there is no allegation, let alone any material, to suggest that they actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of that marriage.”, the court observed.

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A & 34 – Cruelty – Generalised and Vague Accusations Against Relatives – The tendency to implicate all family members of the husband in matrimonial disputes without specific allegations of active involvement must be restricted - General statements of presence and encouragement, unsupported by concrete evidence or specific acts of demand, threat, or physical assault on any identifiable occasion, do not satisfy the legal threshold to sustain a criminal prosecution under Section 498A against the in-laws – Noted that allowing such proceedings to continue constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. [Paras 23 - 25]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 494 & 34 – Bigamy & Common Intention – Liability of In-laws – To sustain a charge under Section 494 against relatives of the husband, the prosecution must prima facie establish an overt act, omission, or active facilitation in the performance of the second marriage ceremony - Mere inferential knowledge, passive awareness, or familial relationship with the husband does not automatically translate into a shared common intention or criminal liability under Section 494 read with Section 34 - Inherent powers exercised to quash the criminal proceedings against the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law as the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and charge sheet failed to prima facie disclose specific offenses against them. [Relied on State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; S. Nitheen and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2024) 8 SCC 706; Paras 21 - 28]

Cause Title: SIVARAMAN NAIR AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Abhilash MR., Adv. Mr. Manjari Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajkumar, Adv. Ms. Ann Melvin, Adv. M/s M R Law Associates, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Renjith B. Marar, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR Mr. Arun Poomulli, Adv. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shyam, Adv. Mr. Jeby Mather, Adv.