Bigamy

17. Punishment of bigamy

Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), shall apply accordingly.

[ 22 ]

Supreme Court of India

Gopal Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 January, 1979

Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 713, 1979 SCR (2)1171

..... If the marriage is void its voidness would only lead to civil consequences arising from such marriage. Section 17 makes it absolutely clear that the provision has to be read in harmony and conjunction with the provisions of Section 494 of the Penal Code which has been extracted above. Section 17 clearly provides that provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Penal Code shall apply accordingly. In other words though the marriage may be void under Section 17, by reason of the fact that it was contracted while the first marriage was subsisting the case squarely falls within the four corners of Section 494 and by contracting the second marriage the accused incurs the penalty imposed by the said statute. Thus the combined effect of Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act and Section 494 I.P.C. is that when a person contracts a second marriage after the coming into force of the said Act, while the first marriage is subsisting he commits the offence of bigamy. (Emphasis ours). This matter no longer res integra as it concluded by a decision of this Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.(1)

(Page 3, 4)

----------

----------

----------

..... In view of the authorities of this Court, therefore, the following position emerges: where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting the spouse would be guilty of bigamy under Section 494 if it is proved that the second marriage was a valid one in the sense that the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been actually performed. The voidness of the marriage under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act is in fact one of the essential ingredients of Section 494 because the second marriage will become void only because of the provisions of Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act.(Page 4)

----------

----------

----------

..... Bigamy is a serious offence and the maximum punishment under Section 494 is seven years. (Page 5)

[ 23 ]

Madras High Court

P. Mohanasundaram vs The President on 30 April, 2013

W.A.No.1662 of 2010

23. Moral turpitude means per Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn., 2004):

Conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty, or morality. In the area of legal ethics, offenses involving moral turpitude such as fraud or breach of trust.  Also termed moral depravity.  Moral turpitude means, in general, shameful wickednes so extreme a departure from ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the community. It has also been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which one person owes to another, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people. (emphasis in original)

24. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana ((1996) 4 SCC 17) this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 21, para 12)

12. Moral turpitude is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity. The aforesaid judgment in Pawan Kumar ((1996) 4 SCC 17) has been considered by this Court again in Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola ((1997)4 SCC 1) and placed reliance on Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector (AIR 1959 All 71) wherein it has been held as under: The expression moral turpitude is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellow men or to the society in general. If therefore the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a duty, either to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man.

25. In view of the above, it is evident that moral turpitude means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means vileness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked and base activities."

19. From the above referred judgments and having regard to the fact that the appellant married another woman, while the first marriage was subsisting, and had acted contrary to the law and to his "estranged wife", we are of the view that the offence of bigamy is coming within the meaning of "moral turpitude".

To stop the bigamy there is no law, but it is an offence it can be punished.  Details you have got already from learned member Amit.

restraining order can be obtained to stop bigamy

Wouldn't getting an injunction against the second marriage be enough to prevent it?