Bigamy Prosecution Requires Evidence of Valid First Marriage Ceremony: Calcutta High Court

In a significant judgment clarifying the legal requirements for prosecuting the offence of bigamy, the Calcutta High Court held that strict proof of a valid first marriage ceremony is mandatory before criminal liability under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Section 82 of BNS) can arise. The Court emphasised that a relationship based merely on a contractual agreement or cohabitation, without the performance of legally recognised marriage ceremonies, cannot constitute a valid marriage under Hindu law.

The decision was delivered by Justice Uday Kumar of the Calcutta High Court in Deep Dey v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 2190 of 2017) on 6 March 2026. The case involved a challenge to criminal proceedings alleging bigamy and matrimonial cruelty under Sections 494 and 498A IPC (Sections 82 and 85 of BNS). The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)] to quash the proceedings, holding that the prosecution was based on a relationship that was legally non-existent from the beginning.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from a complaint filed by the de facto complainant alleging that the petitioner had married her and later entered into another marriage during the subsistence of the first one.

According to the complainant, her relationship with the petitioner culminated in marriage on 27 June 2011. However, the nature of this marriage was unusual. The complainant herself stated in the initial complaint that the parties had executed signatures on a non-judicial stamp paper, which they treated as a marriage agreement. There was no reference to any customary rituals or religious ceremonies typically associated with a Hindu marriage.

Following the alleged marriage, the parties reportedly lived together for nearly three years. During this period, the complainant believed that she was legally married to the petitioner.

The situation changed on 26 July 2014, when the petitioner entered into a registered marriage with another woman, Sumita Saha. This marriage was supported by an official marriage certificate.

Feeling betrayed, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed the offence of bigamy and had also subjected her to cruelty. Consequently, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 494 and 498A of the IPC (Sections 82 and 85 of BNS).

During the investigation, statements of certain witnesses were recorded, suggesting that a temple marriage had taken place between the complainant and the petitioner. However, this version contradicted the complainant’s earlier statement in the FIR that the marriage was executed solely through a stamp paper agreement.

Aggrieved by the criminal prosecution, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.

Issues Before the Court

The High Court was called upon to determine the following key legal issues:

1. Whether a prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 IPC (Section 82 BNS) can be sustained when the alleged first marriage was based only on a contractual agreement executed on stamp paper.
2. Whether a person can be treated as a “husband” for the purposes of Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS) when the alleged marriage was never legally solemnised.
3. Whether criminal proceedings based on such a relationship constitute an abuse of the process of law, warranting the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the entire prosecution was legally unsustainable because the alleged first marriage was not valid in the eyes of the law.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that under Hindu law, marriage is not merely a contract but a sacramental union requiring performance of customary rites and ceremonies. The complainant herself admitted in the FIR that the alleged marriage took place only through signing a document on stamp paper.

It was argued that such a contractual arrangement has no legal recognition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, the essential requirement of a valid first marriage was absent.

The petitioner further submitted that the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC (Section 82 BNS) presupposes the existence of a valid subsisting marriage. If the first marriage itself is void or legally non-existent, the offence of bigamy cannot arise.

Concerning the allegation under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS), the petitioner argued that the provision applies only to cruelty inflicted by a husband or his relatives. Since the parties were never legally married, the petitioner could not be treated as the complainant’s husband.

Accordingly, it was urged that the criminal proceedings were a misuse of the criminal justice system and deserved to be quashed.

Arguments of the State

The State opposed the quashing petition and argued that the FIR should not be treated as a comprehensive narration of the entire case.

The prosecution contended that the omission of certain details regarding marriage ceremonies in the initial complaint did not necessarily mean that such ceremonies had not taken place. The statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation suggested that a temple marriage had been performed.

The State argued that the existence of such ceremonies constituted questions of fact which could only be determined during trial.

To support its arguments, the prosecution relied on the Supreme Court decision in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004) 3 SCC 199, which interpreted the term “husband” broadly for the purposes of Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS). The State submitted that a narrow interpretation would allow offenders to escape liability on technical grounds.

Legal Framework

Section 494 IPC (Section 82 BNS) – Bigamy

Section 494 IPC (Section 82 BNS) criminalises the act of marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse. However, the provision applies only when the first marriage is valid and subsisting.

Courts have consistently held that for a conviction under Section 494 IPC (Section 82 BNS), the prosecution must prove:

1. The existence of a valid first marriage.
2. The performance of a second marriage.
3. The subsistence of the first marriage at the time of the second.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act lay down the requirements for a valid Hindu marriage. Section 5 prescribes essential conditions such as monogamy, mental capacity, age, and absence of prohibited relationships.

Section 7 provides that a Hindu marriage must be solemnised in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies, and where such rites include Saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete upon the seventh step.

Therefore, the performance of customary rituals is central to the validity of a Hindu marriage.

Court’s Analysis

The Calcutta High Court undertook a detailed examination of the legal principles governing bigamy and matrimonial offences.

Contractual Marriage Not Recognised Under Hindu Law

The Court observed that the complainant herself admitted that the marriage was executed through a stamp paper agreement. Justice Uday Kumar emphasised that Hindu law does not recognise marriage as a mere contract. A marriage based solely on signing an agreement document lacks the legal sanctity of customary rites and ceremonies. The Court held that treating such an arrangement as a valid marriage would amount to granting legal sanctity to a simple contractual document.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that a “contractual marriage” executed on stamp paper is a legal nullity under Hindu law.

Requirement of Solemnisation for Bigamy

The Court relied on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (1965).

In that case, the Supreme Court held that the word “marries” in Section 494 IPC (Section 82 BNS) implies a marriage celebrated with proper ceremonies.

Applying this principle, the High Court held that solemnisation of the first marriage is an essential requirement for prosecuting the offence of bigamy.

Since the complainant admitted that no ceremonies were performed and the marriage was only a contractual arrangement, the prosecution for bigamy was legally unsustainable.

Distinction Between Void Marriage and Non-Existent Marriage

The Court carefully analysed the reliance placed by the State on Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam. In Reema Aggarwal, the Supreme Court held that the term “husband” under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS) may include a person who enters into a marital relationship with a woman even if the marriage later turns out to be void.

However, the High Court clarified that this principle applies only when marriage ceremonies were actually performed but the marriage becomes void due to a legal disability, such as a prior subsisting marriage.

The present case was fundamentally different because the alleged marriage never came into existence in the eyes of the law.

Therefore, the Court held that the protection under Section 498A (Section 85 BNS) could not be extended to a relationship that lacked any legal recognition from the beginning.

Inconsistency in the Prosecution Case

The Court also noted a significant inconsistency in the prosecution's case. While the FIR described the marriage as a stamp paper agreement, the prosecution later attempted to introduce the theory of a temple marriage through witness statements.

The Court viewed this shift as an attempt to cure a fundamental legal defect in the prosecution’s case. Such contradictions undermined the credibility of the prosecution and reinforced the conclusion that the alleged first marriage was legally invalid.

Abuse of Criminal Process

The Court observed that compelling the petitioner to face a criminal trial based on a legally non-existent marriage would amount to a misuse of the criminal justice system.

Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) empowers High Courts to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. Since the foundational requirement of a valid marriage was absent, the prosecution was bound to fail.

Judgment

After analysing the facts and legal principles, the Calcutta High Court allowed the criminal revision petition.

The Court held that:

• A contractual marriage executed on stamp paper is not recognised under Hindu law.
• Strict proof of solemnisation of the first marriage is mandatory for prosecuting bigamy under Section 494 IPC (Section 82 BNS).
• A person cannot be treated as a husband under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS) when the alleged marriage is legally non-existent from the beginning.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court.

The petitioner was discharged, and his bail bonds were cancelled. However, the Court clarified that the complainant was not left without remedies. She could pursue relief under other statutory provisions, including the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if the relationship qualified as one “in the nature of marriage.”

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Deep Dey v. State of West Bengal reinforces the fundamental principle that criminal liability must rest on legally recognised relationships and clearly established statutory ingredients.

By holding that a contractual arrangement executed on stamp paper cannot constitute a valid Hindu marriage, the Court reaffirmed the central role of solemnisation and customary rites in matrimonial law.

The ruling also underscores that the offence of bigamy cannot be invoked unless the prosecution establishes the existence of a legally valid first marriage. Without such proof, the entire foundation of the prosecution collapses.

At the same time, the Court ensured that individuals in non-traditional relationships are not left remediless by recognising the possibility of relief under alternative legal frameworks.

The judgment thus strikes a careful balance between preventing misuse of criminal law and safeguarding the rights of individuals in complex personal relationships, while upholding the doctrinal integrity of matrimonial offences under Indian law.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams