Section 81 BNS - Cohabitation caused by man deceitfully inducing belief of
lawful marriage.
Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe
that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that
belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Simpler explanation of the section –
If a man deceives an unmarried woman into believing that she is lawfully married to him and
engages in a relationship or sexual intercourse with her based on that false belief, he can be
punished with imprisonment for up to ten years and may also be fined.
KEY POINTS OF BNS-81:
• Deceptive Induction of Belief:
The offense defined under BNS-81 involves a man who deceitfully leads a woman to believe
that she is legally married to him. This deceit is not merely about informal or misleading
statements but involves inducing the belief that a lawful marriage exists.
• Cohabitation or Sexual Intercourse: The offense is concerned with cases where the woman,
under this false belief of being legally married, engages in cohabitation (living together as a
couple) or sexual intercourse with the man. The deceitful belief in lawful marriage is central
to the offense, and the woman's actions are based on this false assurance.
Punishment for the Offense:
• Imprisonment: The man convicted under BNS-81 faces imprisonment of either description
(rigorous or simple) for a term that may extend up to ten years.
• Fine: In addition to imprisonment, the offender is also liable to pay a fine. The specific
amount of the fine is not detailed but is subject to the court's discretion within legal limits.
The offense of deceit in marriage is defined in Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code as well.
Deceit was defined in the case of Ram Chandra Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand as a
"false statement of fact made by a person knowingly or recklessly with the Intent that it
shall be acted upon it and thereby suffers an injury."
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
For the offense under Section 493 of the IPC, the following ingredients are to be proved:
1. The offense is specifically to be caused by a man;
2. Such a man deceits a woman to have a false belief that she is lawfully married to that man;
KAN Subrahmanyam v. J Ramalakshmi,
It was observed that such deceitful intention must exist on the part of the husband at the time
of marriage. This means if the husband is having no deceitful intention at the time of
marriage and he believes that he is lawfully marrying the woman then he would not be liable
under Section 493.
Moideen v Kutty Haji v. Kunhikoya
It was held that That there must also be inducement by him to the woman to cohabit or have
sexual intercourse with him. If the husband has not put the wife in false belief, then he is not
liable to be convicted of this offense. If the woman knows the fact that she is not legally
married to a man she is cohabitating with and then also continues to cohabit with him, then
she is not in a false belief.
3. Such women must have cohabited or had sexual intercourse with such men.
Section 82 BNS
If you marry someone while your current spouse is still alive, and that second marriage is
legally invalid, you can be imprisoned for up to 7 years and fined.
✓ BNS-82(1) criminalizes the act of marrying again during the lifetime of one's current
spouse. The second marriage is void, meaning it holds no legal validity. The offender is
subject to imprisonment for up to seven years and may also face a fine
✓ Under BNS-82(2), if a person knowingly hides the fact of their previous marriage when
remarrying, they face more severe punishment: up to ten years of imprisonment and a fine.
This provision is aimed at punishing deceit in marriage.
Exceptions:
This doesn't apply if a court has declared your first marriage invalid.
It also doesn't apply if your first spouse has been missing and unheard from for 7 years.
Bigamy with Concealment:
If you hide the fact that you're already married from the person you're marrying, you
can be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined.
Implications of BNS-82
• Prevention of Fraud: The law is designed to protect the sanctity of marriage and prevent
individuals from entering into fraudulent marriages.
• Legal Protection for Second Spouses: By penalizing deceit and concealment, the law also
seeks to protect the second spouse from entering a legally invalid marriage.
BNS-82 aims to ensure transparency in marriages and uphold the institution of marriage by
providing legal remedies against bigamy.
Essential Elements of Bigamy:
Existence of a First Valid Marriage: The accused must have entered into a valid and legally
recognized marriage prior to the second marriage. The first marriage must be subsisting at the
time of the second marriage, meaning it must not have been legally dissolved or annulled.
Contracting of a Second Marriage During the Subsistence of the First: The second
marriage must be contracted while the first marriage is still legally in existence. The timing of
the second marriage is crucial; it is this overlap that constitutes the essence of bigamy.
Validity of Both Marriages: Both the first and the second marriages must fulfill all legal
formalities required for a valid marriage under the law applicable to the parties involved. This
includes the performance of requisite ceremonies and rituals recognized under their
respective personal laws.
CASELAWS
1. S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (2001): In the case of S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (2001),
the Supreme Court of India elaborated on the ingredients necessary to constitute the
offence of bigamy. The Court held that:
The accused must have contracted the first marriage validly.
The first marriage should be subsisting at the time of the second marriage.
The second marriage must be valid, meaning that all necessary ceremonies and rituals
must have been duly performed.
The Court further emphasized that to sustain a charge of bigamy, it is imperative that the
validity of both marriages be established through cogent evidence. If either marriage fails to
meet the criteria of a valid marriage, the offence of bigamy cannot be said to have been
committed.
2. Kanwal Ram and Ors. v. H.P. Administration (1966): the Supreme Court
addressed the necessity of proving the essential ceremonies required for a valid
marriage in a case of bigamy. The Court ruled that:
Mere admission by the accused of having contracted a second marriage is insufficient
to prove bigamy.
The prosecution must establish that the essential ceremonies, as required by the
personal law governing the parties, were duly performed in both marriages.