Court observes that under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, only the spouse with a subsisting marriage is liable under Section 82; second wife unaware of prior marriage cannot be treated as offender
In a significant judgment delivered on August 28, 2026, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice N. Ramesh, granted anticipatory bail to Rajalakshmi, the second wife accused of bigamy and cruelty under Sections 82, 85, 49, 296(b), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The decision was rendered in Criminal Original Petition No. 22231 of 2026.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the first wife of Mayakrishnan, alleging that Rajalakshmi knowingly entered into marriage with a man already married, thereby committing bigamy and subjecting the first wife to cruelty. However, Rajalakshmi contended that she had no knowledge of Mayakrishnan's existing marriage at the time of her marriage to him. She claimed that Mayakrishnan had concealed the fact of his subsisting marriage, and she was a victim of deception rather than a participant in any criminal wrongdoing.
The Court examined the provisions of Section 82 of the BNS, which penalizes the person who, having a living spouse, marries again during the subsistence of the earlier marriage. The Court emphasized that the liability under Section 82(1) attaches only to the spouse who marries again and not to the person who, being herself unmarried and unaware of the subsisting marriage, enters into such a marriage. The Court relied on precedents including the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Thimmappa v. Bharathi (2024) and the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision in Manju Sinha v. Pyari Dadsena (2025), which upheld this interpretation.
Furthermore, the Court observed that Section 85 of the BNS, which punishes cruelty by the husband or his relatives, does not extend to the second wife who claims to have been deceived. The Court referred to the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Sagari Hembram v. State of West Bengal (2024), which quashed proceedings against a second wife on similar grounds.
The Court also noted an important procedural aspect highlighted by the Calcutta High Court in Ajay Kumar v. State of West Bengal (2026), that an offence under Section 82(2) (which punishes concealment of prior marriage) is non-cognizable and cannot be initiated by a police case, but only through a complaint. This further supported the conclusion that custodial interrogation of Rajalakshmi was unwarranted at this stage.
Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), which cautions against automatic arrests in matrimonial offences, the Madras High Court held that the nature and gravity of the allegations did not justify custodial detention of the petitioner. The Court also underscored the absence of any material evidence indicating Rajalakshmi's knowledge of the earlier marriage or any role in concealment.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that Rajalakshmi be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including regular reporting to police and appearance before the Magistrate. The Court clarified that the observations were prima facie and did not amount to a final determination of the merits of the case or the validity of the marriages involved. The investigation against Mayakrishnan and other accused was to proceed without hindrance.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that liability in bigamy cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is personal and linked to the spouse who contracts a subsequent marriage, not the second spouse who may be unwittingly involved. It also highlights the judiciary's cautious approach in matrimonial disputes to prevent misuse of criminal law provisions and unnecessary harassment through custodial interrogation.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail granted to a woman accused of marrying a person already married, under Sections 82 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, considering the absence of prima facie evidence of her knowledge of the subsisting marriage and her role under the statutory provisions.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 82(1), 82(2), 85, 49, 296(b), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (inherent powers for anticipatory bail)
Rajalakshmi v. State, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979253
