Second Wife Who Was Single Cannot Be Prosecuted For Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC: Chhattisgarh HC
"A person who is single marrying another whose marriage is subsisting is not liable under Section 494 IPC, but the person whose marriage is substituting would be liable," the Court said.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that a person who is single and marries someone already in a subsisting marriage cannot be held liable for bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Instead, only the spouse whose first marriage is still valid can be prosecuted under this provision.
The Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed that the law explicitly criminalizes bigamy for individuals who marry again during the subsistence of their first marriage.
"A person who is single marrying another whose marriage is subsisting is not liable under Section 494 IPC, but the person whose marriage is substituting would be liable," the Court clarified while quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the second wife.
Case Background
The case stemmed from a complaint by the first wife, who was married to the accused-husband in 2006. The couple had a daughter in 2009. However, she alleged that her husband and his family began subjecting her to cruelty and eventually ousted her from their matrimonial home due to his second marriage.
The complainant later discovered that her husband had married another woman—the petitioner—in May 2011 without obtaining a divorce. When her attempts to lodge an FIR failed, she filed a complaint against her husband, the second wife, and two others. Based on this complaint, a criminal case was registered under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 494 (bigamy), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The petitioner (second wife) moved the trial court, arguing that she could not be prosecuted under Section 494 IPC, as the provision only applies to individuals who remarry while their first marriage is still in effect. However, the trial court rejected her discharge plea, prompting her to approach the High Court.
Court's Observations
The key legal question before the Court was whether a complaint under Section 494 IPC could be maintained against the second wife.
Interpreting the provision, the Court noted that Section 494 explicitly punishes a person who "having a husband or wife living" remarries while the first marriage is still valid. The legislative intent, the Court emphasized, is to prosecute the erring spouse who remarries while their previous marriage is legally intact—not the individual who, in good faith, marries them without any preexisting marital ties.
"A bare perusal of the Section 494 of the IPC, it is crystal clear that the word used by the Legislature “whoever, having a husband or wife living” commits bigamy as provided therein, and in the later half to fix liability against the “such husband or wife”, expressing the intension of the Legislature to prosecute the erring husband/wife, as the case may be," the Court stated.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the second wife, ruling that her prosecution under Section 494 IPC was legally untenable and amounted to an abuse of the legal process.
Cause Title: Dr. Manju Sinha v. Smt. Pyari Dadsena & Anr. [Neutral Citation No. 2025:CGHC:4513]
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Advocate Sunil Sahu
Respondent: Advocates S.P. Sahu, Laxmeen Kashyap
Click here to read/download the Order