Madras High Court Rules in Favor of Second Wife in Bigamy Case
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that a woman who marries a man without knowledge of his existing marriage cannot be charged with bigamy under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). This judgment was pronounced in the case of Rajalakshmi v. State by Justice N Ramesh, who granted anticipatory bail to Rajalakshmi, the second accused in the bigamy case.
Justice Ramesh observed that the language of the provision on bigamy identifies the offender as the person already married with a living spouse. A woman who unknowingly marries such a person does not fall under the purview of being an offender as per Section 82. Consequently, the Court questioned the validity of the bigamy charges against Rajalakshmi, which contributed to her being granted anticipatory bail. However, the Court clarified that these observations are preliminary and pertain only to the bail decision, not the merits of the case.
The case originated from a complaint by the first wife of Mayakrishnan, who alleged that Rajalakshmi married Mayakrishnan while being unaware of his existing marriage. Rajalakshmi contended that she was misled by Mayakrishnan, making her a victim of his deceit rather than a perpetrator in the marital dispute between him and his first wife.
The Court noted that Section 82(1) of the BNS, which has replaced Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, penalizes the act of marrying again while having a living spouse. The Court emphasized that whether Rajalakshmi was genuinely unaware of Mayakrishnan’s first marriage requires further investigation and possibly a trial. At the anticipatory bail stage, the prosecution failed to provide evidence suggesting she was aware of the subsisting marriage.
Additionally, the Court found that charges under Section 85 of the BNS, related to cruelty by a husband or his relatives, did not apply to Rajalakshmi. It reasoned that she could not be considered a “relative of the husband” of the complainant simply due to a marriage ceremony under false pretenses. The Court noted that both the complainant and Rajalakshmi could be seen as victims deceived by the same individual, rather than one being the victimizer and the other the victim.
More Read
In referencing a March 2026 ruling by the Calcutta High Court, Justice Ramesh highlighted that cases involving concealment of a prior marriage under Section 82(2) of the BNS are non-cognizable and should proceed as complaint cases under Section 219 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. However, he refrained from making a definitive ruling on whether the current criminal case could proceed given these procedural issues, leaving it open for future consideration.
Ultimately, the Court granted Rajalakshmi anticipatory bail under specific conditions. Advocate S Parthibarajan represented Rajalakshmi, while Government Advocate R Rajasekaran appeared for the State.
For a detailed examination of the judgment, [Read Judgment].
