Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife
Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife. Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its 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 sub-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.
(2) Whoever commits the offence under sub-section (1) having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 82, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 494 Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 6
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 202
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 219
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Draft stage of the translated version) s. 44
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 202 Offences committed by means of electronic communications, letters, etc
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 219 Prosecution for offences against marriage
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam s. 44 Opinion on relationship, when relevant
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marrying again during the life time of a husband or wife. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Same offence with concealment of the former marriage from the person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted. | Imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Lily Thomas v. Union of India
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-1.pdf 2000-05-05 DATE VERIFIED. WP(C) tagged with Sarla Mudgal. Sethi/Saghir Ahmad. Conversion to Islam does not dissolve a Hindu marriage; a second marriage during the first's subsistence is void under HMA 11/17 and an offence under IPC 494. Apostasy is only a ground for divorce under HMA 13, not an automatic dissolution. Do not remap constitution Arts 14/15/21 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of IPC 494 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9729). The conversion-does-not-dissolve / second-marriage-is-bigamy teaching carries to BNS 82.
-
Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demudu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a husband takes a plea that a second marriage is void due to subsistence of an earlier marriage, the burden of proving the subsistence of such earlier valid marriage lies on the husband and requires clear and strict proof. The standard of proof required in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is less stringent than that required in criminal prosecutions under Section 494 IPC. In maintenance proceedings, the Magistrate need only find that there was a marriage ceremony, the parties lived as husband and wife, and children were borne of the union. If affirmative evidence on these points is led, the Magistrate is justified in granting maintenance without entering into complicated questions regarding the legal validity of marriage, which are matters for the civil court. The presumption of valid marriage arising from long cohabitation and living together as husband and wife is a strong presumption meant to protect women and children from destitution. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings for those of the Magistrate in regard to positive findings about the existence of marriage. Accordingly, where a Magistrate has granted maintenance finding the applicant to be a deserted wife who has proved cohabitation and birth of children from the union, the High Court cannot set aside such order merely by taking a different view of the evidence.
On this section: Offense of bigamy. Court noted that proof of marriage required in Section 494 criminal cases is different from and more stringent than proof required in Section 125 maintenance proceedings.
-
K. Neelaveni vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court should not exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge sheet at the pre-cognizance stage or before the Magistrate has examined the charge sheet and exercised discretion under Section 239 CrPC. At the stage of considering an application for quashing a charge sheet, the allegations made in the FIR and materials collected during investigation must be accepted as true, and if they prima facie constitute the ingredients of an offence, the charge sheet should not be quashed. The truthfulness or otherwise of allegations is a matter of trial. For warrant cases triable by a Magistrate, the High Court should allow the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure their full play and should not interfere prematurely.
On this section: Bigamy - Applied to allegation that husband married second woman (Bharathi) without dissolving first marriage to appellant
-
K. Neelaveni vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court should not exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a charge sheet at a premature stage, before the Magistrate has considered the charge sheet and exercised his discretion under Sections 190 and 239 of the CrPC. At the stage of considering a quashing petition, the allegations in the FIR and materials collected during investigation must be taken as prima facie true if they appear to constitute the ingredients of the alleged offence. The truthfulness of allegations and procedural aspects such as whether essential ceremonies were performed in a marriage are matters to be decided at the trial stage, not at the charge sheet stage. Therefore, the High Court erred in quashing charges under Sections 406 and 494 of the IPC and should have allowed the matter to proceed before the Magistrate for his examination and decision in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On this section: Bigamy (marrying again during subsistence of first marriage) - Husband married another woman named Bharathi while being married to the appellant; the existence of such second marriage with birth of a child from it prima facie constitutes the offence even without detailed proof of marriage ceremonies at charge sheet stage
-
Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The expression 'husband' in Section 498-A IPC should be interpreted to include any person who enters into a marital relationship and exercises authority as a husband over a woman, subjecting her to cruelty, regardless of whether the marriage is valid or void. The applicability of Section 498-A depends on whether the woman is subjected to cruelty in a marital relationship, not on the legal validity of the marriage. Purposive interpretation must be applied to effectuate the legislative intent of protecting women from dowry-related harassment and cruelty, as the essential ingredient of Section 498-A is the subjecting of woman to cruelty, not the validity of the marriage itself.
On this section: Bigamy - discussed to distinguish from Section 498-A; bigamy requires valid marriage as essential ingredient, but 498-A focuses on cruelty not marriage validity
-
Ushaben vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint alleges offences under both Section 498A IPC (cruelty - Chapter XXA) and Section 494 IPC (bigamy - Chapter XX), police can legally investigate the complaint as a whole without being fettered by the requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC. This requirement applies only to the stage of court cognizance, not to police investigation. The requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC is a procedural requirement for court cognizance under Section 190(1)(a), but does not restrict police investigation when the complaint alleges cognizable offences like Section 498A which can be investigated on police report under Section 198-A.
On this section: Defines offence of marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife. Court clarified that this section is the foundational law for bigamy charges and falls under Chapter XX of IPC, making it subject to Section 198 CrPC for cognizance.
-
Tinopal vs Satish
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal revision petitions against acquittal orders, the appellate court cannot unsettle the acquittal unless it finds perversity or illegality in the findings of the trial court. Where the prosecution fails to prove essential elements of an offense (such as valid marriage ceremonies in a bigamy case) through credible evidence and witness testimony, and where the evidence consists primarily of hearsay and self-serving statements, the acquittal must be upheld. The presumption of innocence is strengthened upon acquittal by the trial court, and where two views are possible regarding guilt or innocence, the view favoring the accused must prevail.
On this section: Bigamy - The court held that mere allegation of second marriage without proof of valid marriage ceremonies (including saptpadi) cannot constitute the offense of bigamy. The prosecution failed to produce evidence of the ceremonies required for a valid Hindu marriage.
-
Gurcharan Singh @ Billa vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving non-heinous offences of a predominantly private nature where the parties have genuinely compromised after conviction and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings and set aside the conviction and sentence, provided the court exercises such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and the nature and seriousness of the offence. The touchstone for exercising this extraordinary power is to secure the ends of justice. However, grave or serious offences involving moral turpitude or having a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of society cannot be compounded or quashed through compromise.
On this section: Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife; cited as a compoundable offence in precedents
-
Rani vs Rakesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate exercises discretion under Section 249 Cr.P.C. to discharge an accused due to non-appearance of complainant, such discretion being judicial in nature must be exercised reasonably and with utmost caution. The court should not automatically discharge the accused upon every instance of complainant's absence. Instead, the court must examine whether the complainant has actively pursued the case with dedication or attended casually. A single non-appearance, particularly when the complainant has been regularly appearing and pursuing the case, should not result in automatic discharge. The discretion must be exercised judiciously after thorough examination of facts, and not arbitrarily. An order of discharge under Section 249 Cr.P.C. is a final order amenable to revision before the Sessions Court, and the distinction between discharge under Section 249 and acquittal under Section 256 must be properly appreciated.
On this section: Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife; cited as the offence alleged in the complaint; court noted that this is a non-cognizable and compoundable offence
-
Gangadhara Shastry vs State by Honnavara Police Station
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings against supplementary accused under Section 319 CrPC require more than prima facie case but short of conviction-level satisfaction. Mere professional advice by advocates or astrologers, family relationships, or general allegations of conspiracy without direct evidence of participation in the alleged extortion scheme do not constitute sufficient grounds to proceed against supplementary accused. Proceeding against such accused amounts to abuse of process of court and warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. However, if during trial evidence surfaces against them meeting the Section 319 CrPC threshold, trial court may summon them.
On this section: Bigamy - cited as example of offence requiring specific person to file complaint
-
J.lalitha vs The Superintendent of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 494, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot direct the police to alter an FIR by adding additional sections of the Indian Penal Code without evidence of the commission of those offences. The police must gather evidence before filing an alteration report, and it is within the police's discretion to determine when and whether to file such a report based on the evidence collected during investigation.
On this section: Bigamy - sought to be added by petitioner but court declined to direct its addition
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner, namely, Miss Amisha Pegu, in connection with Gohpur P.S. Case No. 29/2025 u/s 85 and 82(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, he shall be enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail on his executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: - (i) that the petitioner shall make …
Questions about Section 82
What have the courts held on Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (05 May 2000) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 494, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 494 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9729). The conversion-does-not-dissolve / second-marriage-is-bigamy teaching carries to BNS 82. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2024.
Is Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 82, section 82 BNS, section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 82(1) and bns 82(2). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Lily Thomas v. Union of India (05 May 2000).
What should I read with Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 494 (Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 82, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.