Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses to protect married man living with another woman; says it may constitute bigamy

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that a person living “a lustful and adulterous” life without obtaining a divorce from an earlier spouse may be held liable for the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). [Reena Devi and Anr vs State of Punjab and Others].Justice Kuldeep Tiwari made the observation while declining to order police protection for a live-in couple after noting that the man was still married to another and had a two-year-old daughter out of the said wedlock..“Without obtaining any valid decree of divorce from his earlier spouse and during subsistence of his earlier marriage, the petitioner No.2 [man] is living a lustful and adulterous life with the petitioner No.1 [live-in partner], which may constitute an offence punishable under Sections 494/495 of the IPC, as such a relationship does not fall within the phrase of ‘live-in relationship’ or ‘relationship’ in the nature of marriage,” the Court said..Bigamy is punishable under Section 494 of the IPC and attracts a maximum punishment of seven years with a fine.In this case, the Court was told that a divorce case between the man and his wife is pending before the Family Court. However, the Court pointed out that the man's actions may still constitute the offence under Sections 494 (marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife) and 495 (concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted) of the IPC..The man and his live-in partner had approached the Court seeking police protection, to protect them from relatives.The Court was told that while the relationship has been accepted by the family members of the man, the family members of the woman (partner) have threatened to kill them. However, Justice Tiwari said only “bald and vague” allegations regarding such threats were made in the petition.There was no material placed on record to support these allegations nor any instances cited of how such threats were extended, the Court further noted. .Thus, it opined that such “bald and vague allegations” cannot be readily and naively accepted by the Court, in the absence of any valid and convincing material to support the claims..The Court, therefore dismissed the live-in couple's petition, opining that it appeared to have been instituted “to avoid any criminal prosecution in case of adultery."“To the judicial mind of this Court, under the guise of invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the hidden intent of the petitioners is just to obliquely obtain the seal of this Court on their conduct,” the Court said..Advocate Virender Singh represented the petitioners..[Read Order]