INTRODUCTION
The Madras High Court has stepped into a question that touches thousands of quiet, painful situations across India: what happens to a woman who marries a man in good faith, only to discover later that he was already married? In a recent order, Justice N. Ramesh held that a woman who marries a man without knowing that his earlier marriage is still subsisting cannot be prosecuted for bigamy under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The ruling, delivered while granting anticipatory bail to a woman arrayed as the second accused, draws a sharp line between deception and criminal culpability, and offers relief to second wives caught in cases they did not knowingly create.
BACKGROUND
The case, Rajalakshmi v. State, arose from an FIR registered in July 2026 at the All Women Police Station, Panruti, in Cuddalore district, following a complaint by the man’s first wife. The FIR invoked Sections 82, 85, 49, 296(b) and 351(2) of the BNS, covering bigamy, cruelty by a husband or his relative, abetment, obscene acts and criminal intimidation. Rajalakshmi, named as the second accused, sought anticipatory bail, arguing she had no idea that the man she married, Mayakrishnan, already had a living spouse. The prosecution, however, had treated her presence in the marriage itself as sufficient ground for criminal liability, without producing material showing she knew of the earlier union. This is where the High Court intervened, examining whether the language of the bigamy provision actually covers a woman placed in her position, and whether the cruelty provision, ordinarily aimed at a husband’s family, could stretch to cover a second wife who was herself misled.
KEY POINTS
- Liability under Section 82 of the BNS attaches only to the spouse who remarries during a subsisting marriage, not to the person that spouse marries.
- The Court held that “a person who is herself unmarried and marries such a person, without knowledge of the subsisting marriage, does not thereby become an offender under Section 82.”
- Section 85 of the BNS, corresponding to Section 498A of the IPC, punishes cruelty inflicted by a husband or “relative of the husband.”
- A second wife does not qualify as a “relative of the husband,” since that term covers only relations by blood, marriage or adoption.
- The judge described both wives as victims of the same deception, calling them two women wronged by the same man, not an accused or victim.
- The Court relied on the Calcutta High Court’s reasoning in Sagari Hembram v. State of West Bengal 2024 SCC Online Cal 10278 in support of its view.
- The bail plea succeeded partly because the prosecution produced no material showing the second wife knew of the earlier marriage.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Importantly, the Court did not close the door on trial altogether. It clarified that whether Rajalakshmi was genuinely unaware of the first marriage remains a question for investigation and, if necessary, trial. At the anticipatory bail stage, though, since the prosecution had placed no material showing she knew of the subsisting marriage, the case did not disclose the gravity that would justify custodial interrogation. The order, passed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, allowed the plea subject to conditions, while confining itself expressly to the prima facie view required at this preliminary stage, leaving the final determination of facts open for the trial court.
CONCLUSION
This ruling is significant because it refuses to treat every woman named in a bigamy FIR as automatically complicit. By anchoring liability to knowledge and intent rather than mere participation in a marriage ceremony, the Madras High Court has protected women who are themselves victims of concealment by the men they married. At the same time, the judgment is careful not to hand out a blanket immunity, leaving the question of actual knowledge open for full investigation and trial. For now, though, the order signals that criminal law under the BNS will not automatically punish a woman for a deception practised upon her, a distinction that could shape how similar bigamy and cruelty complaints are handled across India going forward.
“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: HARSHMEET KAUR SUDAN
