The Madras High Court has 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).

Justice N Ramesh made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to Rajalakshmi, who had been arrayed as the second accused in a bigamy case.

The Court observed that under the plain language of the provision, the offender is the person who already has a living spouse. A woman who is herself unmarried and marries such a man without knowledge of his subsisting marriage does not thereby become an offender under Section 82 BNS.

Second Wife Claimed Husband Concealed First Marriage

The case arose from a complaint filed by the first wife of a man named Mayakrishnan. She alleged that Rajalakshmi had married Mayakrishnan while his marriage with the complainant was still subsisting.

Rajalakshmi, however, claimed that Mayakrishnan had concealed his first marriage from her. She contended that she too was a victim of his deception and had been unnecessarily implicated in the matrimonial dispute between the man and his first wife.

The High Court noted that Section 82(1) BNS, which replaced Section 494 of the IPC, penalises a person who marries again during the lifetime of their husband or wife.

The Court said that whether Rajalakshmi was genuinely unaware of the first marriage would have to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at trial. However, at the anticipatory bail stage, the prosecution had not produced material showing that she knew about the subsisting first marriage.

Second Wife Cannot Automatically Be Treated as Husband’s Relative

The Court also considered the invocation of Section 85 BNS, which deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives.

Justice Ramesh prima facie found the provision inapplicable to Rajalakshmi, reasoning that a woman who was herself allegedly deceived about the man's existing marriage could not automatically become a “relative of the husband” of the first wife merely because she underwent a marriage ceremony with him.

In a significant observation, the Court said that if Rajalakshmi's version was correct, she and the complainant were “the two women deceived and wronged by the same man, not that of an accused and her victim.”

Court Refers to Calcutta High Court Ruling

The Madras High Court also referred to a March 2026 judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had held that an offence under Section 82(2) BNS involving concealment of an earlier marriage is non-cognisable and cannot be initiated through a police case.

Such proceedings, the Court noted, are required to be instituted as a complaint case under Section 219 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

However, Justice Ramesh refrained from deciding whether the present criminal proceedings could survive despite the alleged procedural issue, leaving the question open for consideration at the appropriate stage.

The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and confined to consideration of anticipatory bail, and would not prejudice the prosecution against Mayakrishnan or the other accused.

The Court ultimately granted Rajalakshmi anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

Case: Rajalakshmi v. State
Before: Justice N Ramesh, Madras High Court