Back
Affair Isn't Marriage: Karnataka HC Frees Elderly Couple from Charges
In a ruling that clarifies the fine line between a and actual marriage, the has quashed proceedings against a 73-year-old man, his two sons, and his live-in partner. Justice R. Nataraj, in an order dated , emphasized that targets only the spouse who during their partner's lifetime—not lovers, family, or silent supporters.
The decision came in three connected criminal petitions (CRL.P Nos. 470/2019, 7922/2018, and 6031/2022) filed under , challenging a trial court order that had in CC No. 3630/2018.
From Family Feud to Courtroom Battle
The drama unfolded when a 66-year-old woman—wife of Accused No. 1 and mother of Accused Nos. 2 and 3—filed a private complaint (PCR No. 36051/2017) before the . She alleged her husband had a bigamous relationship with Accused No. 4, while their sons (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) watched silently. The complaint painted Accused No. 1 and No. 4 as married, invoking Section 494 (marrying again during spouse's lifetime) read with Section 34 ( ) IPC.
After recording her sworn statement, the trial court issued process on . The accused—husband, sons, and the other woman—rushed to the High Court, arguing the complaint lacked proof of any second marriage.
Petitioners Strike Back: No Wedding, No Crime
, for the petitioners, hammered home that Section 494 punishes only the " ." He dismissed charges against the sons as absurd—"silent spectators" don't abet . For Accused No. 4, he argued the law doesn't rope in the second partner. Crucially, the complaint itself described an "illegal relationship," not a marriage—no date, venue, or evidence of ceremonies was mentioned.
The respondent's counsel countered that the sons abetted under , and Accused No. 4 wrecked the family. He claimed a marriage invitation listing Accused No. 1 and No. 4 as parents proved wedlock.
Court's Razor-Sharp Legal Dissection
Justice Nataraj cut through the noise, dissecting Section 494: it applies solely when a person with a living spouse
marries
another, punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment and fine.
"It is the
who alone would be liable... not anyone else, even if such person has supported the accused,"
he ruled, even rejecting
via Section 109 or
under Section 34.
He leaned on Supreme Court precedents: - S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala (2024) 8 SCC 706: No one but the remarrying spouse can be charged under Section 494 alone; others need specific proof, which was absent. - Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal (1992) 3 SCC 317: provisions don't apply to .
Without allegations or proof of a second marriage—just
"living in an illegal relationship"
—no offense was made out against anyone.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Mere living in a relationship, does not amount to a marriage and therefore, an offence under Section 494 of IPC was not made out by the complainant."
"For an offence under Section 494 of IPC, the provisions of Section 109 of IPC cannot be invoked as Section 494 of IPC only contemplates punishing theand no one else."
"The Trial Court without considering the case from this stand point, has erroneously proceeded on an assumption that accused No.1 and the other accused are complicit in an offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC."
Clean Slate: Proceedings Quashed
The petitions succeeded. Justice Nataraj quashed the , order and all proceedings in CC No. 3630/2018 against Accused Nos. 1 to 4.
This ruling reinforces that demands concrete marriage proof, shielding live-in arrangements from IPC wrath. It offers relief in family disputes, urging complainants to substantiate claims beyond mere cohabitation—and reminds courts to scrutinize before summoning.
