Mere Live-In Relationship Not Marriage; No Bigamy Without Proof Of Second Marriage U/S 494 IPC: Karnataka High Court

The Court further clarified that only the erring spouse can be prosecuted for bigamy, and not relatives or third parties allegedly supporting such a relationship, which in the present case were the children.

Justice R. Nataraj while referring to Section 494 IPC observed, “The complainant did not even disclose as to when they were married and where they lived as husband and wife. All that she has mentioned in the private complaint is that accused No.1 and accused No.4 are living in an illegal relationship. It is now well settled that an offence under 494 of IPC would be attracted only when a person takes another in marriage during the lifetime of his/her spouse. Thus, it was incumbent upon the complainant 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 Trial Court without considering the case from this stand point, has erroneously proceeded on an assumption that accused No.1 and the other accused are complicit in an offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC”

“…it is 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. For an offence under Section 494 of IPC, the provisions of Section 109 of IPC cannot be invoked as Section 494 of IPC only contemplates punishing the erring spouse and no one else”, the Bench further noted.

R. Gopalaswamy, Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner and Advocate K. Shrihari appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, a private complaint was filed by the wife alleging that her husband was in a relationship with another woman and had contracted a second marriage. She also arrayed their children as accused, claiming they were silent supporters of the alleged bigamous relationship. Acting on the complaint, the trial court had taken cognizance under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC and issued process against all accused.

Allowing the petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC, the Court held that the trial court had committed a clear error in proceeding against the children and the alleged second partner. The Court emphasized that Section 494 IPC specifically penalises the act of remarriage during the lifetime of a spouse, and its scope does not extend to relatives or others, even if they are alleged to have supported the act.

The Court relying on settled law and Supreme Court precedents, reiterated that provisions relating to abetment (Section 109 IPC) or common intention (Section 34 IPC) cannot ordinarily be invoked in cases under Section 494 IPC, as the offence is personal to the spouse contracting the second marriage.

“Consequently, the trial Court without going into the contours of Section 494 of IPC, erroneously took cognizance of the offence against accused Nos.2, 3 and 4”, the Bench noted.

Importantly, the Court found that the complaint itself failed to establish a crucial ingredient of the offence, proof of a valid second marriage. It noted that the complainant had merely alleged that the husband and the other woman were living in an “illegal relationship”, without specifying when or where a marriage took place. The Court said that mere cohabitation or a live-in relationship does not amount to marriage in the eyes of law for the purpose of attracting Section 494 IPC.

In the absence of specific pleadings and prima facie material demonstrating a second marriage, the Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process. Accordingly, it quashed the order of cognizance as well as the entire proceedings pending before the trial court.

Cause Title: X v. Y. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:13088]

Appearances:

Petitioner: R. Gopalaswamy, Senior Counsel, Bhargav G, Advocate.

Respondent: K. Shrihari, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Order