If a married man is living a lustful and adulterous life without obtaining a divorce from his earlier spouse, it may constitute the offense of bigamy, the court said.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that a person living “a lustful and adulterous” life without obtaining a divorce from an earlier spouse may be held liable for the offense of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). [Reena Devi and Anr vs State of Punjab and Others]

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari made the observation while declining to order police protection for a live-in couple after noting that the man was still married to another and had a two-year-old daughter out of the said wedlock.

The court stated, “The petitioner No. 2 [man] is living a lustful and adulterous life with the petitioner No. 1 [live-in partner] without obtaining any valid decree of divorce from his earlier spouse and during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. This may constitute an offense punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC, as such a relationship does not fall within the phrase “live-in relationship” or “relationship” in the nature of marriage.”

Bigamy is punishable under Section 494 of the IPC and attracts a maximum punishment of seven years with a fine.

In this case, the court was told that a divorce case between the man and his wife is pending before the Family Court. But the Court also noted that the man might still have violated Sections 494 (remarriage while a husband or wife is still alive) and 495 (concealment of a previous marriage by a person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted) of the Indian Penal Code.

The man and his live-in partner had approached the court seeking police protection to protect them from relatives.

The court was told that while the relationship has been accepted by the family members of the man, the family members of the woman (partner) have threatened to kill them. 

However, Justice Tiwari said only “bald and vague” allegations regarding such threats were made in the petition.

There was neither material placed on record to support these allegations nor any instances cited of how such threats were extended, the Court further noted.

In the absence of any solid and persuasive evidence to back up the claims, it therefore held that the Court cannot simply and naively accept such “bald and vague allegations.”

The Court therefore dismissed the live-in couple’s petition, opining that it appeared to have been instituted “to avoid any criminal prosecution in cases of adultery.”

“To the judicial mind of this Court, the hidden intent of the petitioners is just to obliquely obtain the seal of this Court on their conduct,” the Court stated, disguising their use of the writ jurisdiction.

Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses to protect married man living with another woman; says it may constitute bigamy