Married Man Living Adulterous & Lustful Life Without Obtaining Divorce May Be Offence U/S 494, 495 IPC: P&H HC

A Bench of Justice Kuldeep Tiwari held, “it appears that in order to avoid any criminal prosecution in case of adultery, the present petition has been instituted. 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.”

Advocate Virender Singh appeared for the Petitioners.

The Court raises several points of consideration. Firstly, it disclosed that petitioner No.2 is already married and has a two-year-old daughter from that marriage, living with him. The Court noted the existence of a divorce case, but its outcome remained undisclosed, suggesting it is subjudice. The Court said, “without obtaining any valid decree of divorce from his earlier spouse and during subsistence of his earlier marriage, the petitioner No.2 is living a lustful and adulterous life with the petitioner No.1, 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.”

Additionally, the Court highlighted the lack of substantive evidence supporting the allegations of threats. It deemed the accusations as "bald and vague," lacking corroboration or specific instances.

The Court added, “what further erupts from a naked eye scrutiny of the instant petition, as also the representation (Annexure P-3), is that, only bald and vague allegations, qua threats being extended to the petitioners by the private respondents, are made therein. Neither any supportive material has been placed on record by the petitioners to corroborate their allegations, nor even any single instance pertaining to the manner and mode of alleged threats being extended to the petitioners has been anywhere disclosed. Therefore, such bald and vague allegations cannot be readily and naively accepted by this Court, in the absence of any valid and convincing material in support thereof.”

The Court suggested that the petition might be an attempt to evade criminal prosecution for adultery under the guise of seeking protection.

Consequently, the Court found no concrete grounds to grant the requested reliefs and dismissed the petition, implying that the hidden intent of the petitioners may be to obtain the court's approval for their conduct while avoiding criminal consequences.

Cause Title: Reena Devi & Anr. v. State Of Punjab & Ors., [2023:PHHC:141007]

Click here to read/download Order