Bigamy and Cruelty

social action v/s uoi

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. Nancy Shubham
Roll No. 234/18
B Com LLb ©
6th Semester
Sections Involved: bigamy
 494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.—Whoever,
having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such
marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such
husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
 Exception —This section does not extend to any person whose marriage
with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of
competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage
during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the
time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent
from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been
heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the
person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such
marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is
contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or
her knowledge.
 Bigamy
The word bigamy drive from two words bi and gamos. bi means
twice and gamos means married. A person who marrying
someone while already married to another person. When a person
is already married and the marriage is still valid, then contracts
another marriage with another person is called BIGAMY and the
person committing this is called bigamist

Classification of offence
Bailable and Non Cognizable Offence
Essentials of Section 494

1)Existence of a Previous Marriage

2)Second Marriage to be valid
3)Second marriage is to be void by reason of First
Husband or Wife Living
1) Existence of a Previous Marriage
It is essential to establish the offence of Bigamy that at the
time of the second marriage, the person was already
married. The first marriage should be a valid contracted
one. If the first marriage is not valid , the second marriage
does not amount to bigamy.

2) Second Marriage to be valid

In order to attract the provision of this section, not only the
first marriage, but also the second Marriage should be a
valid one.This means all necessary ceremonies should have
been duly performed.
3) Second marriage is to be void by reason of First Husband
or Wife Living
The offence of bigamy is made out only when the second
marriage is rendered void by reason of its taking place
during the life of the first wife or husband. It has n
application to cases where a second marriage is permitted
under the personal laws or customs governing the parties.
 Effect of conversion

In Sarla Mudgal v/s Union of India, it was laid down that

when a parties to a marriage get married under a particular
personal law, that marriage will continue to be governed by
the personal law under which they got married, irrespective
of the fact that either of the spouse have converted to
another religion. Hence, spouse cannot escape the liability
under Section 494,IPC by resorting to conversion to Islam or
any other religion. Mere conversion does not dissolve the
first marriage and thereby does not dissolve the person from
criminal liablity for bigamy.
 Sections involved: cruelty
Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be pun­ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the
purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view
to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]
cruelty
“Cruelty” means—
 (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
 (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view
to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]
Essential of 498A

The offence under Section 498A is restricted to only acts of commission or

omission done by the Husband or His relatives. A person who is not a relative, but
a friend however close s(he) is to the family of the Husband, cannot be
prosecuted under this Section.

In Reema Aggarwal v/s Anupam , it was argued that “husband” of the “second
wife” who marries her during the subsistence of his earlier legal marriage, is not
the husband within the meaning of Section 498A and therefore, the second wife
cannot invoke section 498A for cruelty and harrasment caused to her by him or
his relatives. In this case, The trial court and high court acquitted him accepting
the contention .
However, The Supreme Court rejected the contention asserting that these
provisions were added for curbing the evil intents of dowry and to prevent
harassment to a women who enters into a marital relaionship with a person and
later on becomes the vcitim of greed of money. A contention that there is not a
valid marriage should not be allowed.
 Who can complaint??

Section 198A ,CrPC mandate a court not to take cognizance

of an offence punishable under 498A except a upon a police
report of facts that constitute the offence or upon a
complaint made by the aggrieved wife or by her father,
mother, brother ,sister or by any person related to her by
blood, marriage or adoption.
 Social action v/s uoi

 FACTS: The present petition had been filed for issue of directions

to the Respondents to create an enabling environment for married
women subjected to cruelty to make informed choices and to
create a uniform system of monitoring and systematically
reviewing incidents of violence against women under Section 498-
A of Indian Penal Code including their prevention, investigation,
prosecution and rehabilitation of the victims and their children at
the Central, State and District levels. That apart, prayer had been
made to issue a writ of mandamus to the Respondents for a
uniform policy of registration of FIR, arrest and bail in cases of
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code in consonance with the law of
the land, i.e., to immediately register FIR on complaint of cruelty
and harassment by married women as per the Indian Penal Code.
 ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT: The arguments made by the learned counsel
of appellants are as follows: - 1.Absence of uniform system. 2.The motive behind
Section 498-A is being lost as the tenacity of the provisions have been diluted by
making the offence bailable and imposing various restrictions for filing of the FIR
under the Rajesh Sharma case. 3.Though Section 498-A of IPC have been made
non-bailable, the police is still indecisive to arrest the accused on a complaint by a
married woman.

 ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT: The arguments raised by the learned

counsel for the respondent is as follows: -
1.Section 498-A is often used as a weapon rather than as a defence by certain
wives as it has been made non-bailable and a cognizable offence.
2.Few-a times-, the wives use this legal provision to harass the in-laws as an arrest
would lead to their humiliation, curtails freedom, and casts scars forever.
 JUDGMENT: The Supreme Court stated that: -
1.It is not the court’s authority to question the legislature
regarding any law or ask the legislature to enact or repeal
any particular law.
2.It was also stated by the court that it was legislature’s
decision to make this section cognizable and non-bailable
and further if there is any fault.
3.with the investigating team, the court can’t help that out.
4.The court also stated that the intervention of FWC and the
powers of the District Legal Services Authority is
impermissible.
Thank you