The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a bigamy case filed by a 66-year-old woman against her 73-year-old husband and a woman with whom he was said to be in a live-in relationship..The offence of bigamy only arises if a married person enters into a marriage with another during the lifetime of his/ her spouse, the Court noted. Justice R Nataraj found that the complainant-wife in this case had not shown her husband to have entered into such a second marriage with another. A mere live-in relationship does not amount to a marriage, and, therefore, the offence of bigamy would not be attracted in this case, the Court concluded. The Court, therefore, quashed a trial court order taking cognisance of the wife's complaint. "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 Trial Court without considering the case from this stand point, has erroneously proceeded on an assumption that accused No.1 (husband) and the other accused are complicit in an offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC," the Court said. .The High Court also quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the children of the accused man and the complainant woman/ his wife.The complainant had accused her children of being silent spectators to the bigamous relationship between her husband and his partner. She, therefore, alleged that they too were guilty of abetting the offence of bigamy. The Court, however, pointed out that under Section 494 (bigamy) of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by BNS), only the bigamous spouses would be liable for the offence, not their live-in partner or children. "The erring spouse who alone would be liable to be prosecuted and not anyone else, even if such person has supported the accused in any manner whatsoever ... The trial Court without going into the contours of Section 494 of IPC, erroneously took cognizance of the offence against accused Nos.2, 3 (children of the complainant and her husband) and 4 (husband's partner)," the Court held. .The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate CR Gopalaswamy, along with advocate Bhargav G.Advocate K Shrihari represented the wife (respondent). .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
