Live-In Relationship With Another Woman Not Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Quashes Wife's Case Against Septuagenarian Husband

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a 73-year-old husband, his alleged second wife, and his own children, holding that mere living in an 'illegal relationship' does not constitute marriage for the purpose of Section 494 IPC (marrying again during the lifetime of spouse).

According to the complainant-wife, her husband, one of the accused in the private complaint lodged by her, had multiple illicit relationships.

She had also named the woman allegedly living in a bigamous relationship with her husband in the complaint, which led to the subsequent proceedings before the trial court judge at Mysuru. Interestingly, the complainant-wife had also accused her own children of being 'silent spectators' to the illicit relationship their father had with the other woman.

“…it was incumbent upon the complainant [wife] to plead and prove that accused No.1 had married accused No.4. 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 bench sitting at Bengaluru also clarified that the trial court's order of taking cognisance against the accused was not legally sound.

Based on the wife's private complaint, the court at Mysuru, had taken cognisance of the offences under Section 494 of IPC [Criminalises Bigamy] r/w Section 34 of IPC. Challenging the said order, the appellant husband, children and the accused woman approached the High Court.

“….perusal of the private complaint does not show that there was any allegation that accused No.1 had married the accused No.4. The complainant did not even disclose as to when they were married and where they lived as husband and wife…”, the single judge bench of Justice R. Nataraj noted in the order.

After referring to Section 494 of IPC [S.85 in BNS], the court inferred that only the 'erring spouse' alone can be prosecuted under the said section, irrespective of the support or involvement of others in such a bigamous relationship. As the complainant-wife argued, Section 109 of IPC (S. 49 of BNS) for abetment wouldn't apply to rope in the children and the woman allegedly in an illicit relationship with the spouse, the court added. The court also relied on the apex court judgment in Chand Dhawan vs. Jawahar Lal and others [(1992) 3 SCC 317], which upholds the same principle that Section 109(abetment) can't be invoked in an offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC.

The petitioner's counsel based their submissions on the basis that nothing indicates that the accused-husband had married the accused-woman during the subsistence of his marriage with the complainant-wife.

Senior counsel C.R Gopalaswamy and advocate Bhargav G appeared for the petitioners, including the husband, children, and the alleged second wife. Advocate K. Shrihari represented the complainant-wife.

Case No: Crl. P No 470/ 2019, Crl P. No. 7922 OF 2018 & Crl. P No. 6031 OF 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 109

Click Here To Read/Download Order