HC refuses to quash bigamy case, says marriage claim must be tried

A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav held, “Strong presumption arises in favour of marriage when two people, who not only live together for a long period of time as husband and wife but also portray to the world that they are husband and wife

MUMBAI: A man accused of marrying a woman while her first marriage was still legally subsisting has failed to get the bigamy proceedings against him quashed, with the Bombay High Court ruling on Friday that the claim suggesting the couple lived and presented themselves as husband and wife must be examined during the trial.

Mumbai, India - Aug. 28, 2015 : Bombay High Court : ( Photo by Bhushan Koyande )

A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav held, “Strong presumption arises in favour of marriage when two people, who not only live together for a long period of time as husband and wife but also portray to the world that they are husband and wife. Albeit rebuttable, this presumption can only be rebutted by unshakable evidence and the heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin”.

The dispute began in 2002, when the complainant married the woman in Delhi. They moved to Mumbai in 2006. In 2014, the woman left their matrimonial home and filed for divorce before the Bandra family court.

The husband alleged that she had started living with another man in an Andheri flat and that the two presented themselves as husband and wife even though her first marriage had not been dissolved. He then filed a private criminal complaint alleging bigamy.

The man argued that the complaint did not mention when or where the alleged second marriage took place, who witnessed it or what ceremonies were performed. He maintained that living together or representing themselves as husband and wife was not enough to establish a valid marriage, and that the requisite ceremonies had to be proved.

The high court, however, noted that a police verification certificate and statements by people who knew the couple raised a strong presumption of marriage. It also pointed out that the two had represented themselves as husband and wife over several years.

The bench observed that, apart from making a bare assertion that he was unmarried, the man had failed to place any material on record to show that no marriage had taken place between them.

Noting all the evidence, the court held that a “trial is necessary for proving the offence of bigamy”, and directed that proceedings against the couple should continue as per law.