INTRODUCTION
The Karnataka High Court has held that a married man in a live-in relationship with another woman cannot be prosecuted for bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). Subsequently, Justice R. Nataraj quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband, his alleged live-in partner and their adult children. The court ruled that “mere live-in relationship does not amount to a marriage”, thus does not constitute to bigamy, as a valid second marriage is absent, in the eyes of criminal law.
BACKGROUND
A 66 year old wife and 73 year old husband have been married for decades and have 2 sons. The wife filed a private complaint before a Mysuru court accusing the husband of “illicit relationships” and alleging that he was living with a 51‑year‑old woman “like husband and wife.” Based on this, she asked the magistrate to take cognizance under Section 494 IPC (Section 85 of BNS) read with Section 34 IPC (Section 3(5) of BNS) against the husband and the alleged partner and the two sons, saying the children had supported and facilitated the relationship. The trial court tried the four accused for bigamy and common intention. Aggrieved by this, the 4 accused approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the complaint was silent on solemnization of any second marriage. They contended that the pleadings of an “illegal relationship” or live-in arrangement may be a ground for matrimonial relief but does not amount to bigamy.
KEY POINTS
- The High Court held that an offence under Section 494 IPC (Section 85 of BNS) is attracted only if the complainant pleads and proves that the spouse has contracted a second valid marriage during the subsistence of the first valid marriage, with basic particulars such as date, place and manner of solemnisation.
- The Court also noted that the wife’s complaint didn’t allege an actual marriage ceremony between the husband and the other woman, it merely stated that they were in an “illegal relationship” and living together, which is insufficient to make out bigamy.
- Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court, the Karnataka HC reiterated that cohabitation does not convert itself into “marriage”under the Criminal Law, however long or socially objectionable it be.
- The HC emphasized that Bigamy punishes only the “erring spouse”, and not the children, relatives or a live-in partner. Thus, they cannot be prosecuted for bigamy by invoking Section 34 IPC (Section 3(5) of BNS or Section 109 IPC (Section 45 of BNS), since the statute does not specify their punishment for this offense.
- The High Court quashed the entire proceedings against the husband, his live-in partner, and the sons, holding that the magistrate had proceeded on mere assumptions before testing whether the statutory ingredients of bigamy were even pleaded.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The ruling in the Criminal Petition No. 470 of 2019 read with connected petitions, was delivered on 3 March 2026, since then it has been circulating widely in practitioner commentary and legal media. Commentators have pointed out that family courts routinely see spouses attempt to drag the relatives and alleged partner along with the husband, to the criminal proceedings, often without laying concrete facts of second marriage. A live‑in relationship may attract protective criminal remedies in some contexts, but it does not, by itself, constitute a second marriage for the purpose of prosecuting bigamy.
CONCLUSION
The Karnataka High Court quashed the bigamy case showcasing that criminal law cannot be stretched to punish every extra‑marital or live‑in relationship, however unfair it may feel to the spouse left behind. The Court’s emphasize on concrete pleadings and proof of a valid second marriage ensures misuse of the provision and establishes a limit on the use of it, i.e., to not drag children and partners into criminal court. The decision separates moral grievance and criminal liability, reminding that allegations of “living together” are not, by itself, sufficient to amount to bigamy in the eyes of the law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: ABIA MOHAMMED KABEER
