If a married man is living a lustful and adulterous life without obtaining a divorce from his earlier spouse, it may constitute the offence of bigamy, the Court said.
In the case of Reena Devi and Anr vs State of Punjab and Others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, with Justice Kuldeep Tiwari presiding, mentioned that leading a “lustful and adulterous” life without obtaining a divorce from a previous spouse could result in potential charges of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. This legal perspective played a crucial role in the court’s decision to deny police protection to a couple living together. Justice Tiwari highlighted that the man involved was still legally married and had a two-year-old daughter from that marriage.
“Without obtaining any valid decree of divorce from his earlier spouse and during subsistence of his earlier marriage, the petitioner No.2 [man] is living a lustful and adulterous life with the petitioner No.1 [live-in partner], 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,” the Court said.
As per Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, marrying again while still in a marriage is considered a serious offense, carrying a maximum imprisonment term of seven years along with a fine. In the ongoing legal case, it has been revealed that the person filing the case is currently going through a divorce with their spouse in the Family Court. Even though the divorce is underway, the Court has pointed out that the person’s actions could still be seen as a crime under Sections 494 (marrying again while still married) and 495 (keeping a past marriage secret) of the IPC.
To seek legal protection, the person and their live-in partner approached the Court, expressing concerns about possible threats from their families. While the person’s family seems supportive of their relationship, the live-in partner’s family allegedly issued threats of physical harm.
However, Justice Tiwari closely examined the claims of threats in the petition, describing them as “vague and unsupported.” The Court emphasized the lack of evidence or clear details about the nature of these threats. As a result, the Court couldn’t accept these claims without strong evidence.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, hinting at a potential underlying motive for filing it—possibly to preemptively avoid legal trouble in case of allegations of adultery.
“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,” the Court said.
