Bigamy Charge Not Sustainable Against Alleged Second Wife: Karnataka High Court Reiterates, Retains Cruelty FIR Against Husband

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (February 12) quashed charge of Bigamy (Section 494 IPC) against the alleged second wife of a man, in a complaint filed by the first wife of the husband reiterating that such a spouse cannot be dragged into the case specially where the allegations stems from a suspicion.

The court was hearing a petition moved by a husband and his family as well as his alleged second wife, seeking quashing of an FIR filed on the complaint of the complainant stated to be the first wife of the petitioner. The FIR was lodged under Sections 498A(cruelty), 323(voluntarily causing simple hurt), 494(bigamy), 417(punishment for cheating), 506(criminal intimidation), 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In June last year the court had stayed the probe.

The petitioner and second respondent complainant got married on 20-5-2021. After relationship entered into a discord, the parties moved the family court wherein they settled the dispute by seeking to rejoin each other. Differences arose after the settlement, and rejoining never happened. The husband moved a plea seeking divorce before the family court in 2024. The complainant thereafter filed complaints against the petitioners. The present FIR was based on the third complaint.

The police conducted investigation and filed a chargesheet before the concerned court. Against these proceedings the petitioners moved the high court.

After hearing the parties the court in its order noted, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said:

"The complainant does not rejoin for manifold reasons but seeks to register a crime for offences punishable under Section 498A and other offences against husband whom she never rejoined. The allegation is that there was demand of dowry and cruelty and all the accused joined hands together and got the accused no. 7 married to the petitioner (accused no. 1). Therefore complaint is registered in 2024...If complaint and summary of chargesheet are juxtaposed what would unmistakably emerge is that offence of bigamy against the petitioner no. 1 that he got married to accused no. 7 springs on suspension. Though counsel for complainant has contended that photographs are available of the marriage in a temple, the photographs no where depict any marriage being held. Therefore it is drawn on suspicion. Particularly of the offence of Bigamy qua accused 2-10, they are said to be present at the time of marriage and have sprinkled sacred rice upon petitioner and accused no. 7. This submission, contention cannot be accepted for an offence to become Section 494 IPC against all members of the family. Therefore offence against accused 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10 is obliterated".

The court noted that a coordinate bench of the high court had held that an alleged second wife cannot be dragged into web of crime qua offence of Section 494 IPC.

"In that light accused no. 7 the alleged second wife also cannot be permitted to be tried in the present case," the court said.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the ingredients necessary to drive home allegations levelled against petitioners are present. With respect to Section 498A the counsel said that none of the complaints in any manner conveyed any action of cruelty at the hands of the husband or the family members against the complainant, with respect to demand for dowry.

He submitted that Section 494IPC was roped in only a suspicion that the husband may have married accused no.7 i.e., the alleged second wife.

The counsel for complainant said that the accused no. 7 is second wife of the petitioner and referred to photographs on the same adding that she was pregnant and the petitioner was the father. He said that the matter should be left to trial with respect to the allegations made.

With respect to offence of Section 498A IPC, the court held that there was no allegation of cruelty meted out by any other member of the petitioner's family on the complainant on demand of dowry. It thus quashed Section 498A charge against accused 2-10, the family members of petitioner as well as alleged second wife.

It said that there were allegations against the husband under Sections 494 and 498A IPC which would require a trial. It said that if during the trial it is proved by prosecution that there indeed was a second marriage, then it is open for prosecution or any other party to bring back the accused no. 7 (alleged second wife) into web of proceedings by filing an application.

"Criminal Petition stands allowed qua accused 2-10 for all the offences. Criminal petition stands sustained qua accused no. 1 for offences of Sections 494, 498AIPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act," the court directed.

The petition was thus partly allowed.

Case title: DEVARAJ H D v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P 8070/2025