Consent of wife immaterial in offence of bigamy: HC

The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash proceedings under IPC section 494 against a 77-year-old man stating that bigamy is a continuing offence and consent given by wife or wives would be immaterial.

The petitioner had challenged the proceedings initiated by his first wife Chandramma whom he had married in 1968.

The petitioner Anand C alias Anku Gowda, his third wife Varalakshmi, both residents of Bengaluru and four others had challenged the proceedings pending before a Channapatna court for offences under IPC Sections 494 (bigamy) and 109 (abetment).

The complaint stated that the petitioner/accused married Chandramma’s sister in 1973 and subsequently another woman in 1993. The trouble started in 2015 when the petitioner husband executed a gift deed in favour of his third wife in respect of a property. Besides the allegation of bigamy, Chandramma’s two daughters filed a civil suit against their father and his third wife.

In his petition before the high court, Anand contended that while Chandramma had consented for his marriage with her sister, both the sisters had consented for his third marriage. He also claimed that there was an inordinate delay of 25 years in filing the private complaint after the third marriage.

Justice M Nagaprasanna pointed out that the assertion that complainant - wife was aware about the bigamy is legally immaterial in the first place. “It being with the consent of the first wife or with the consent of the first and second wives for the third time would become immaterial for consideration of offence of bigamy. In the teeth of the admitted facts of the petitioner marrying thrice and its subsistence even as on day, the plea of delay in registration of the crime would pale into insignificance, as bigamy in the case at hand is a continuing offence,” the court said.

However, the proceedings against four others, who are relatives and friends of Anand and his third wife, are quashed. “That is not the averment in the complaint. The second marriage took place in 1973 and the third marriage in 1993. Dragging all other members of the family and friends into the web of these proceedings sans countenance,” the court said.

The court also said that the observations in the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners either to sustain or to obliterate the proceedings and the same would not influence or bind further proceedings against the petitioners or any other accused or any other proceedings pending.