A 76-year-old man, who married three women, has to face trial for the offence of bigamy along with his 49-year-old third wife, as the High Court of Karnataka has declined to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them on the complaint by his 69-year-old first wife.
‘Web of offence’
When the man has admitted that he is the husband of three women, he is in the “web of offence” punishable under section 494 (marrying again during the life time of husband or wife) of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court observed while declining to quash the criminal case.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while rejecting the petitions filed by Anand C., 76 and his third wife, both residents of RPC Layout in Vijayangara, Bengaluru. The petitioners had questioned the legality of cognisance of offence taken against them in 2021 by a magistrate court in Chennapatna based on a complaint lodged by first wife in 2018.
“In the teeth of the admitted facts of the petitioner-husband 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 High Court observed.
The High Court also said that “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.”
The petitioner-husband, after his first marriage in 1968, married again in 1973 and his second wife was the sister of his wife. He had children from both these wives. In 1993 he married the third woman, who is aged around 49 at present, the High Court noted in its order.
‘First time had consented’
It was claimed on behalf of the petitioner-husband that the first wife had consented to second and third marriages but lodged a complaint only after he had given two of his properties to his third wife. It was also claimed in the petition that he had given properties to all the wives.
However, the first wife had alleged in the complaint that petitioner-husband had married the third woman by suppressing the first marriage.
Meanwhile, the High Court quashed criminal case registered against some of the relatives and friends of the petitioner-husband as there was no averments against them in the complaint.
