Rajalakshmi v. The State, 2026

The petitioner, Rajalakshmi, was the woman who had entered into a marriage with a man who was allegedly already married.

A criminal case was registered on the complaint of the man's first wife.

The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 82, 85, 49, 296(b) and 351(2) of the BNS.

The petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail in apprehension of arrest.

She contended that at the time of her marriage, she had no knowledge of the man's existing first marriage.

According to her, the husband had concealed his earlier marriage from her.

She argued that she had therefore been deceived by the husband rather than knowingly participating in the offence of bigamy.

The Court examined the scope of Section 82 BNS, particularly whether a woman who herself was unmarried and unaware of the existing marriage could be prosecuted for bigamy.

The Court also examined whether such a second wife could be treated as a “relative of the husband” for the purpose of Section 85 BNS.

The Court noted that Section 85 is specifically directed against cruelty by the husband or a relative of the husband, rather than against every person connected with the matrimonial relationship.

The Court referred to the reasoning in Sagari Hembram v. State of West Bengal, where proceedings against a second wife under the corresponding IPC provisions had been quashed.

The Court observed that where the second wife genuinely had no knowledge of the first marriage, both women could be victims of the husband's deception rather than one being automatically treated as the offender against the other.

The Madras High Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, subject to conditions. 

The Court held that the plain language of Section 82 BNS targets the person who marries again while his or her spouse is living.

A woman who is herself unmarried and does not know about the subsisting marriage of the person she marries does not automatically become an offender under Section 82.

The Court noted that the enhanced provision concerning concealment of the former marriage cannot be mechanically applied to a second wife who was herself the person from whom the earlier marriage was concealed.

The Court further held that the petitioner did not fall within the expression “relative of the husband” under Section 85 BNS.

Section 85 is confined to the husband and persons who stand in a legally recognised relationship of relative to him.

The Court observed that the petitioner was herself allegedly deceived by the husband regarding his existing marriage.

The Court therefore found that the allegations did not justify treating her as an accused under Sections 82 and 85 merely because she had married the man.

The Court also held that custodial interrogation was not necessary in the circumstances, particularly because the petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge was a matter that could be examined during investigation.

Anticipatory bail was consequently granted subject to appropriate conditions.

The judgment primarily turns on the plain language of Sections 82 and 85 BNS.

Section 82 is directed at the person who enters into a second marriage while an earlier marriage continues to subsist.

The Court therefore distinguished between the person who is already married and the person who unknowingly enters into marriage with that person.

The ruling is particularly significant where the second spouse alleges that the existing marriage was deliberately concealed.

In such circumstances, automatically treating the second wife as a co-offender would ignore the possibility that she herself was deceived by the first husband.

The Court also applied the principle of strict construction of penal provisions: criminal liability cannot be extended to a person unless the statutory ingredients of the offence are satisfied.

Regarding Section 85, the Court emphasised the words “husband or relative of the husband.”

A person does not become a “relative of the husband” merely because she has a matrimonial connection with the same man.

The Court therefore maintained a distinction between a second wife and persons who are legally related to the husband by blood, marriage or adoption.

The decision also illustrates the importance of distinguishing between anticipatory bail and final determination of guilt.

The Court did not finally determine every factual question concerning the alleged lack of knowledge; rather, it held that the petitioner's defence required investigation and that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

The ruling reflects the principle that criminal prosecution cannot be expanded beyond the statutory ingredients of an offence.

The decision also recognises the possibility that matrimonial disputes involving a first wife and an unaware second wife may involve deception by the husband, rather than a straightforward accused-versus-victim relationship between the two women.