In the case of Anand versus Chandramma, the Karnataka High Court held that bigamy is a continuing offence and consent given by the wife or wives would be immaterial.
The High Court of Karnataka has refused to dismiss charges pressed against a 77-year-old man under IPC section 494. The petitioner had challenged Chandramma, his first wife, who he had married in 1968, and the proceedings she had started.
Anand C alias Anku Gowda, his third wife Varalakshmi, both Bengaluru residents, and four others had challenged proceedings pending before a Channapatna court for offences under IPC Sections 494 (bigamy) and 109 (abetment). According to the complaint, the petitioner/accused married Chandramma’s sister in 1973 and then another woman in 1993. The problem began in 2015 when the petitioner’s husband signed a gift deed in his third wife’s name for a property.
Chandramma’s two daughters filed a civil suit against their father and his third wife and the bigamy allegations. Anand claimed in his petition to the high court that while Chandramma had agreed to his marriage with her sister, both sisters had agreed to his third marriage. He also claimed that the private complaint was filed 25 years after the third marriage, which he claimed was excessive.
The assertion that the complainant’s wife was aware of the bigamy is legally irrelevant, according to Justice M Nagaprasanna. “It would become immaterial whether it was with the consent of the first wife or with the consent of the first and second wives for the third time for consideration of the offence of bigamy.”
The plea of delay in registration of the crime would pale into insignificance in light of the admitted facts of the petitioner marrying thrice and its continued existence even to this day, as bigamy in the case at hand is a continuing offence,” the court said. The charges against four others, all of whom are relatives or friends of Anand and his third wife, have been quashed.
“That isn’t an allegation in the complaint.” The second and third marriages took place in 1973 and 1993, respectively. The court stated, “dragging all other members of the family and friends into the web of these proceedings without regard.”
The court also stated that the observations in the order are only for the purpose of considering the petitioners’ case, whether to uphold or dismiss the proceedings and that they will not affect or bind future proceedings against the petitioners or any other accused or any other pending proceedings.