The SC criticises ‘undue’ sympathy shown by lower courts in bigamy cases

On July 15, a division bench of the Supreme Court pronounced an interesting judgment, coming down heavily on a couple for committing bigamy and sentencing a woman and her second husband to six months in jail each. While enhancing the punishment imposed by the Madras High Court, the apex court went on to chastise the High Court’s sentence of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ by referring to it as a “flea-bite sentence” and stressing the serious nature of the offence of bigamy during the appeal. Holding that conversion to another religion by one or both spouses did not dissolve the marriage, the apex court emphasised that religious conversion solely for the purpose of a second marriage was invalid and such a person would be guilty of committing bigamy. The Law Commission’s report went on to recommend that a new provision be inserted under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, to the effect that a married person whose marriage is governed by the HMA cannot marry again even after changing their religion unless the first marriage is dissolved or declared null and void as per the law. Therefore, even though no minimum sentence has been prescribed under the law for bigamy, the apex court observed that courts must be mindful that the sentence is proportional to the serious nature of the offence.