Offence Of Bigamy U/S. 494 IPC Applicable Only On Husband Who Married The Second Time; Not On His Second Wife: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the first wife after holding that the offence under Section 494 of the IPC is applicable only on the husband who married the second time, and not his second wife.
The Court allowed the revision preferred by the second wife (Petitioner) for quashing criminal proceedings against her under Sections 498A, 494, 406, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (the Act). The Court held that the offences were not prima facie applicable to the Petitioner as she was the second wife of the husband, and not her relative.
A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) clarified the ambit of Section 494 of the IPC and observed, “The said provision and the language used therein clearly implicates that the offence alleged under Section 494 of IPC is applicable to the person who has married for the second time, during the life time of his spouse in a valid marriage.”
Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam M. appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate D.R. Ravishankar represented the Respondents.
The criminal proceedings were initiated based on a written complaint lodged by the first wife (complainant). The complainant alleged that her husband and his family demanded dowry, inflicted mental and physical torture upon her, and that her husband had subsequently married another woman and was living a conjugal life with her.
The Petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings, arguing that she was not a relative of the complainant’s husband and the allegations made in the complaint were not applicable to her.
The High Court noted that Section 494 of the IPC punished the act of marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse. However, the offence is applicable “to the person who has married for the second time, during the life time of his spouse in a valid marriage,” the Court clarified.
Consequently, the Court held, “The said conduct of second marriage is prima facie applicable in respect of the husband of the complainant and the ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie not applicable in respect of the petitioner herein.”
Therefore, the Bench stated that the rest of the offences alleged were prima facie not applicable in respect of the Petitioner. “The ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 506 IPC are also not present in respect of the petitioner herein,” it stated.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision.
Cause Title: S v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Sourav Mondal and Roni Mondal.
Respondents: Advocates Tanmoy Kumar Ghosh and M.F.A. Begg