SC sends couple to 6 months in jail for bigamy, orders alternate prison time to protect child
The case involved a woman who remarried while her first marriage was still legally valid, and the complaint was filed by her first husband.
The Supreme Court on Monday sentenced a woman and her second husband to six months in jail each for committing bigamy even as it devised an unusual, yet considerate sentencing plan, taking note that the couple has a six-year-old child.
In a first, a bench of justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar ordered that the second husband should first surrender to serve his sentence. After he completes his term, the woman is to surrender within two weeks to serve her sentence. This staggered sentencing approach would ensure that one parent remains with the child while the other is serving the jail term.
The case involved a woman who remarried while her first marriage was still legally valid. The complaint was filed by her first husband, who approached the Supreme Court against the August 2022 judgment by the Madras high court, which sentenced the woman and her second husband to “imprisonment till the rising of the court” -- a punishment the Supreme Court described as a “flea-bite sentence” inadequate for the gravity of the offence.
The bench underscored the importance of imposing a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and the offender’s previous conduct.
Emphasising that lenient sentences for serious offences like bigamy can have a detrimental impact on society at large, it held: “In the matter of awarding sentence for conviction of an offence which may impact society, it is not advisable to let off an accused after conviction with a flea-bite sentence.”
The court highlighted that the rule of proportionality in providing punishment is crucial to maintain order and justice in society, adding that sentencing should consider all relevant facts and circumstances and not be influenced solely by the passage of time since the offence.
Asserting that appropriate punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the offence, is necessary to maintain civic order and societal confidence in the legal system, the bench said that the interests of society should not be overlooked while the rights of the victim must be considered.
“Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of the society,” the bench held.
In the present case, the court noted that Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes the maximum sentence of seven years in jail while the offence is compoundable only by the husband or wife of the person so marrying, and with the permission of the court. To be sure, the penal provision has been retained under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) that has replaced the IPC with effect from July 1.
“Once it is found that an offence under Section 494 IPC, is a serious offence, the circumstances obtaining in this case would constrain us to hold that the imposition of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ is not a proper sentence falling in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment,” said the bench, setting aside the high court order.
Holding that the punishment to the woman and her second husband was “unconscionably lenient,” the bench found it a material fact to note that the woman received alimony from the first husband until two months before she delivered the child with the second husband.
“It is evident that the first accused (woman) married the second accused while the marriage between the appellant (first husband) and her was subsisting. Not only that, during its subsistence, she had also begotten a child with the second accused. Taking into account all the circumstances, it can be said that undeserving leniency was shown in the case on hand,” held the bench.
The court then enhanced the punishment for the woman and her second husband to six months in jail each, with the stipulation that they would suffer the incarceration one after the other so that there is always one parent with the child. “This arrangement shall not be treated as a precedent as it was ordered in these special circumstances,” clarified the bench.