Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of it’s taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Exception: This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge
Understanding the Section
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code forbids the act of marrying someone else while the first spouse is still alive. Section 494 specifies that this marriage will be considered as voidable and punishable because it violates the idea of monogamy under Indian law. Section 494 would apply to an individual, who, while knowing or having sufficient opportunity to find that an individual’s husband or wife is still living, enters into a second marriage without justification or legal excuse. The idea of Section 494 is to provide for the sanctity of marriage and consider the potential legal consequences of contending marriages.
There are exceptions to the law in cases where a competent court has declared the first marriage to be void or when the former spouse has been absent and unheard of for a period of at least seven years, assuming the new spouse is informed of the realities surrounding the situation.
Essential Elements
- Presence of a Living Spouse: The accused must have a spouse (husband or wife) who is alive at the time the second marriage exists.
- Second Marriage: The accused must be entering a second marriage while the first spouse is still living.
- Knowledge of the First Marriage: The accused must have knowledge of having been married and that the spouse is still living.
- No Legal Exception: There is not a legal exception to the second marriage being valid such as long absence of the first spouse.
- Intentional Act: The action of remarrying is an act of choice; it does not apply for accidental or unaware of first spouse remarrying for purposes of the section.
Punishment
- The guilty can be punished by imprisonment of description for a term not exceeding 7 years, or
- Fine.
The punishment warrants the magnitude of the offence, because remarrying without valid justification compromises family life and societal order.
Exceptions under Section 494 of the IPC
- Void Marriage Declared by Court: Where, a person is married and that marriage has been declared void by a competent court, then if person remarries, he/she may not be guilty.
- Absence for Seven Years: Where, the spouse of a person has been absent and unheard of for seven years, that person may lawfully remarry, provided he/she informs his/her spouse about the actual state of affairs relating to the previous marriage.
The exceptions here ensure that a person does not suffer the penalty under the IPC in cases, for instance, where the person is presumed dead or the first marriage is void.
Illustrations
- Illustration 1: A is married to B. A marries C during the lifetime of B, and does not legally dissolve the first marriage. A may be guilty under section 494 IPC.
- Illustration 2: D’s spouse, E, has been absent and unheard of for eight years. D knows that E was married to him/her and informs F about the previous marriage before marrying F. D is not guilty as the exception applies.
- Illustration 3: G’s marriage to H was declared void by a court. G marries I. G is not guilty under section 494 IPC.
Legal Precedents
- State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (2000): The court held that knowledge of the living spouse is important in this section. The prosecution of Section 494 may not arise marrying again without such knowledge.
- Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra (1995): The Bombay High Court held that seven years of absence is sufficient to protect someone who reasonably believes their spouse to be dead and discloses everything to their current spouse.
- Mohammad Ismail v. State of Kerala (1987): The court concluded that it is not considered an offense under Section 494 to remarry when the court has pronounced the first marriage void.