Section 82 BNS — Marrying Again During the Lifetime of a Husband or Wife

What changed on 1 July 2024 — and the numbering trap

On 1 July 2024 the Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. For this offence the change was almost entirely one of numbering. Two old sections were folded into one new section with two sub-sections, and one word in the Exception was adjusted to fit that structure. Nothing in the substance moved.

The exact text of Section 82

Two features of the drafting are worth noticing straight away, because they explain a great deal about how these cases behave in court.

The first is the phrase "marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife". The section does not create the voidness. It borrows it. Whether the second marriage is void is decided by the personal law or the special law that governs the parties — the Hindu Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act, and so on — and the criminal section then attaches to it. That is why a bigamy case can never be argued out of the marriage law; the two run together.

The second is the word "marries". It is not "lives with", not "represents himself as married to", not "holds a function". The Supreme Court has read it to mean marries validly, and that reading is the reason a large proportion of bigamy complaints do not survive trial. Section 5 below deals with it in full, because it is the most important practical thing on this page.

Quick reference — how the offence is classified

Two points in that table are worth expanding, because they are the two that ranking pages most often get wrong.

Bigamy is bailable. A great many articles describe it as non-bailable, apparently by association with the more serious matrimonial offences. It is not. The First Schedule to the BNSS classifies both sub-sections of Section 82 as bailable and non-cognizable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Section 81 and Section 83 are non-bailable, which may be the source of the confusion.

Sub-section (1) is compoundable. Also frequently stated the other way round. It sits in the table of offences that may be compounded with the permission of the court, and the person competent to compound is the husband or wife of the person who married again. Sub-section (2) — the concealment offence — does not appear in either compounding table at all, and the BNSS is explicit that no offence may be compounded except as that provision allows. The practical consequence is set out in section 13 below.

The four things that must be proved

To bring home a charge under Section 82(1) the complainant must establish four things. They are worth setting out plainly, because a complaint that does not address all four is a complaint that will be dismissed, however true it is.

Items 1 to 3 are usually straightforward. Item 4 is where these cases are won and lost, and it deserves its own section.

The ceremonies point — the defence that decides most cases

The word in the section is "marries". The Supreme Court has consistently read that as requiring a valid marriage — one celebrated with the ceremonies that the personal law of the parties treats as essential. A ceremony that falls short does not create a marriage, and where there is no second marriage there is no offence, however clear the intention was.

For a Hindu marriage, Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 says a marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party, and that where those rites include saptapadi — the seven steps taken jointly before the sacred fire — the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. In the ordinary case, therefore, the complainant has to prove the invocation before the sacred fire and the seven steps.

The evidentiary consequence was spelled out a year later, and it is stricter than most people expect.

Read that second half again, because it defeats a great many complaints. The accused saying "yes, she is my wife" is not proof that the marriage happened. Photographs of a function, an invitation card, a temple receipt, even a registration certificate, all help — but the court is looking for evidence of ceremonies actually performed, which usually means a witness who was present and can describe what was done.

The line continued in Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (1971), where the Court read "whoever marries" as meaning "whoever marries validly". And it was qualified — importantly — in S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (2001), where the Court restored a bigamy conviction and made clear that saptapadi is essential only where the rites of the parties themselves include it. Section 7(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is expressly conditional on that. Where a valid form of marriage under a State amendment or a recognised custom does not involve the sacred fire and the seven steps, its absence proves nothing.

…and where that defence stops working

The ceremonies point is a defence at trial. It is not a shield against being summoned, and the distinction matters enormously in practice, because a case can take years to reach the stage where evidence is led.

The Delhi High Court addressed this directly in Pooja Sharma Bajaj v. Kunal Bajaj (2024), restoring a summoning order that had been set aside on the footing that the complainant could not, at that stage, prove saptapadi. The Court's reasoning was that a person who has gone through a second marriage cannot rely on the difficulty of proving its ceremonies as a way of escaping the consequences at the threshold. The challenge to that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2 September 2024, which said in terms that whether saptapadi was performed is a matter to be decided during the trial, and not one that should have been gone into at the stage of summoning.

So the position, stated fairly to both sides, is this:

• If you are defending, the ceremonies point is real and often decisive — but expect to have to run it at trial, not at the summoning stage, and expect the court to be unimpressed by an argument that amounts to "the marriage I went through was too irregular to count".
• If you are complaining, you are not obliged to prove the full ceremony before summons issue — but you will have to prove it eventually, and a complaint that never identifies where and how the second marriage was performed is a complaint that ends in acquittal.

The seven-year absence exception

The Exception to sub-section (1) does two things. It takes out of the section anyone whose earlier marriage has been declared void by a competent court. And it takes out anyone whose earlier spouse has been continually absent for seven years and has not been heard of as being alive during that time.

The second limb has a condition attached to it that is easy to miss and fatal to overlook: the person remarrying must, before the second marriage takes place, inform the person they are marrying of the real state of facts so far as it is within their knowledge. The exception protects a person who is honest about a spouse who has vanished. It does nothing for a person who simply keeps quiet.

Why you usually cannot file an FIR

This is the single most useful thing on this page for somebody who has just discovered a second marriage, and it is the thing almost every article gets wrong. People spend weeks going from police station to police station, are turned away, and conclude that the police are refusing to help. In most cases the police are correct.

There are two separate barriers, and both have to be crossed.

The result is that bigamy is prosecuted by way of a private complaint before a Judicial Magistrate, filed by the aggrieved spouse. That is the ordinary route and you should plan for it from day one.

When an FIR does happen

Bigamy rarely comes alone. It usually arrives alongside allegations of cruelty under Section 85, or cheating, or an offence relating to dowry, or a maintenance dispute. Where the information given to the police discloses a cognizable offence as well, the police can and should register an FIR and investigate — and where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case is treated as a cognizable case even though the other offences are non-cognizable.

What that does not do is dispense with the complaint requirement for the bigamy count itself. The bar on cognizance is a bar on the court, not on the police. So the practical shape of a well-run matter is often two tracks running side by side: an FIR for the cognizable offences, and a separate private complaint for Section 82. An advocate who has done these before will tell you that on the first day.

Who is allowed to file the complaint

Section 219 of the BNSS — the successor to Section 198 of the old Code — sets out who may complain of an offence relating to marriage. The starting point is that only the person aggrieved may do so. Around that, the section builds a set of exceptions.

Two further points that are easy to miss:

• The requirement of a complaint extends to abetment of, and attempt to commit, the offence. So a complaint that seeks to proceed against the family members who arranged the second marriage must still come from a person competent to complain.
• The one-year time limit that appears in the same section is tied to a different offence and does not apply to Section 82. Do not let anybody tell you your bigamy complaint is time-barred after a year.

How a private complaint actually runs

A private complaint under the BNSS moves through a short and fairly predictable sequence. Knowing it removes most of the anxiety of the first few dates.

The proviso requiring that the accused be heard before cognizance is the significant change from the old practice, and it is still settling. High Courts that have considered it have generally taken the view that the notice should issue after the complainant's evidence has been recorded and before cognizance is taken — that is, it is an opportunity to be heard, not a right to cross-examine at that stage. Expect the practice in your court to be worked out on the spot, and expect it to add a date or two.

Filing in Delhi — court, fee, legal aid

The complaint is filed before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction, which ordinarily follows where the second marriage was solemnised, or where the parties last resided together, or where the aggrieved wife currently resides. Which of these applies to your facts is a question for an advocate — it is the first thing a competent one will ask you about.

Delhi has more police districts than judicial districts and the boundaries do not map neatly. Confirm the current allocation from the Delhi District Courts website or the filing counter before you travel.

What it costs to file

The court fee on a criminal complaint is nominal — a small fixed fee on the complaint, and a further process fee when summons issue. The real cost is professional fees, and those vary enormously. Ask for the fee to be broken down in writing before you engage anyone: drafting the complaint, appearances up to summoning, and the trial are three separate pieces of work and are often quoted separately.

The evidence you will actually need

Complaints fail on evidence far more often than on law. Collect these before you file, not after.

For the first marriage

• Certified copy of the marriage certificate, or a certified extract of the marriage register from the registering authority. A photocopy of your own certificate is weaker than a fresh certified copy obtained from the registrar.
• Wedding photographs and video, the invitation card, and the temple, Arya Samaj or gurudwara receipt if there is one.
• The names and contact details of witnesses who were present — including, if possible, the priest who officiated.
• Anything that shows the marriage continued: joint documents, ration card, passport, insurance nominations, the children's school records naming both parents.

For the second marriage

• Where it took place — the name and address of the mandir, mosque, church, gurudwara, marriage hall or registrar's office. This single fact drives everything else.
• The register entry at that place. Arya Samaj mandirs and temples maintain marriage registers; a certified copy or an inspection is often obtainable, and where it is not, the register can be summoned by the court.
• The marriage certificate of the second marriage, if one was issued, and any application made to a registrar.
• Photographs, video and the invitation card, with the date visible where possible.
• At least one witness who was physically present at the ceremony and can describe what was performed. This is the piece of evidence that decides the case.
• Any written admission — messages, letters, a social media post announcing the marriage. Useful, but remember that an admission alone is not proof of the ceremony.

For your own position

• Proof that no decree of divorce or nullity exists, or its date if one does.
• Anything showing concealment, if you are the second spouse — because that moves the case from sub-section (1) to sub-section (2), and from seven years to ten.

Settlement, limitation and quashing

Can it be settled?

Section 82(1) is compoundable with the permission of the court, by the husband or wife of the person who married again. That means a settlement is legally possible, but it is not self-executing: an application has to be made and the court has to allow it. Section 82(2) — the concealment offence — is not compoundable, and no offence can be compounded except as the compounding provision permits.

In practice, bigamy complaints are very often part of a larger matrimonial settlement that also covers maintenance, custody, stridhan and a divorce by mutual consent. Where that happens, the criminal matter is usually brought to an end either by compounding with the court's permission, or by a petition to the High Court to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement. Both routes need the court's participation. A settlement deed signed at a lawyer's office does not by itself close a criminal case.

Limitation

There is no limitation bar for Section 82. The limitation provision in the BNSS applies to offences punishable with a fine, or with imprisonment up to one year, or up to three years — and Section 82 carries seven and ten. Delay can still be raised, and often is, as a circumstance going to the genuineness of the complaint; it is not a legal bar.

Worth noting for completeness: Section 84 (enticing a married woman), which carries a maximum of two years, is subject to a three-year limitation. If your matter includes that count, the clock does matter.

Quashing

A person summoned in a bigamy complaint may move the High Court to quash the proceedings. The grounds that succeed are the structural ones: that the complainant was not a person competent to complain under Section 219; that the complaint, taken at its highest, does not disclose a second marriage at all but only cohabitation; that the marriage predates the parties' own relationship; that the matter has been settled and continuing serves no purpose. The ground that generally does not succeed at that stage, after the 2024 decisions, is that the complainant will be unable to prove the ceremonies — because that is a trial question.

What happens to the second marriage itself

For most people the criminal case is not the main event. What they actually need to know is what the second marriage is worth in law, and what that means for property, maintenance and children.

Void means void from the beginning. A void marriage is a nullity whether or not anybody goes to court about it. That said, obtaining a formal declaration of nullity is usually worth doing, because it converts an argument into a decree — useful for passport and visa applications, service records, property mutation, and for any later remarriage.

Conversion, and why it does not help

A recurring scheme is for a married Hindu man to convert to Islam and then marry again, on the theory that his new personal law permits it. The Supreme Court has closed this off twice, and clearly.

In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) the Court held that conversion to Islam does not by itself dissolve a marriage solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act, and that a second marriage contracted after such a conversion is void and attracts the bigamy provision. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) the Court reviewed and reaffirmed that position. The first marriage continues until it is dissolved under the law that created it. Nothing about the conversion changes that, and the courts have not been sympathetic to the argument that religious freedom requires a different answer.

The second spouse — maintenance and children

The person in the hardest position is often not the first wife but the second — a woman who married in good faith, discovered afterwards that her husband was already married, and finds that her marriage is void and she is told she has no rights. That last part is no longer an accurate statement of the law.

In Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025) a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25 of that Act. That is a straightforward, statutory route, and it is considerably cleaner than the earlier position, which required the woman to show that she had been deceived and to rely on an equitable reading of the maintenance provisions in the criminal code — the approach taken in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014).

Separately:

• Children of a void marriage are legitimate. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act says so expressly. They are entitled to maintenance and to inherit from their parents. The extent of their claim to ancestral or coparcenary property has been more contested and turns on the facts.
• The concealment sub-section is hers to use. Where the first marriage was concealed from her, the offence is under Section 82(2), which carries ten years rather than seven — and she is the person aggrieved for the purposes of complaining.
• Section 81 may be the stronger charge. See the next section.

Section 81 — the stronger section nobody mentions

Section 81 BNS, the old Section 493 IPC, punishes a man who by deceit causes a woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is, and cohabits with her in that belief. The punishment is up to ten years and a fine, and unlike Section 82 the offence is non-bailable.

The reason it matters here is a piece of legal symmetry that is almost never pointed out. Section 82 requires proof of a valid second marriage — so the more irregular the ceremony, the weaker the bigamy case. Section 81 requires no valid marriage at all: it requires deceit and a belief. The very facts that destroy the bigamy charge — no proper ceremony, no register entry, a woman who believed she was married when she was not — are the facts that make out the offence under Section 81.

For a woman who has been deceived into a marriage that turns out to be no marriage, Section 81 is therefore often the better section, and it is worth asking your advocate about it expressly, because it is routinely overlooked.

If either of you is a government servant

This is, for a large number of families in Delhi, the most consequential part of the whole subject, and it is missing from almost every article on bigamy.

The conduct rules that apply to central government servants — Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 — prohibit a government servant who has a wife living from entering into or contracting a marriage with any person without first obtaining the permission of the Government, and apply the same prohibition to a female government servant with respect to a husband living. Most State services and many public-sector undertakings have rules to the same effect.

The practical significance is this: a departmental proceeding does not wait for the criminal case, and it does not need a conviction. Misconduct in a departmental enquiry is established on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, and the penalties run up to removal from service. For a complainant, a written intimation to the employer is a step with real weight. For a government servant facing the allegation, it means the service consequence may well arrive years before the criminal court reaches judgment — and requires its own, separate advice.

What to do — three situations

If you have just discovered your spouse has remarried

1. Do not confront yet. Secure the evidence first — especially where the second marriage was performed, and the register there.
2. Get a fresh certified copy of your own marriage certificate or register entry.
3. Write down everything you know with dates while it is fresh: how you found out, who told you, what you saw, what was said.
4. Consult an advocate about the whole picture, not just the bigamy count. In almost every real case the right answer is a combination: a complaint under Section 82; maintenance; a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 where the facts support it; and a decision about whether you want the marriage dissolved.
5. Ask about the employer, if your spouse is in government service.
6. If cost is the obstacle, go to the legal services clinic in your district court complex. Legal aid for a woman does not depend on income.

If you are accused, and the second marriage was never properly solemnised

1. Attend court. The offence is bailable; not appearing converts a manageable problem into a warrant.
2. Say nothing that admits a marriage. An admission is not proof of the ceremony, but it is a gift to the other side and it will be quoted back at you for years.
3. Assemble the ceremony evidence early — or, more precisely, the evidence of what did not happen. Where there is no register entry, get that in writing from the institution.
4. Understand the timing. Expect the ceremonies point to be decided at trial, not at summoning. Plan for a long case and behave accordingly.
5. Consider the sub-section. If the allegation is under 82(2), the exposure is ten years and there is no compounding. That is a different case and needs different advice.

If you married someone who turned out to be already married

1. Your marriage is void, but you are not without rights. Get a declaration of nullity so that your position is on record.
2. Maintenance is available. The 2025 Supreme Court decision described above is the provision to ask your advocate about, alongside the maintenance route in the criminal code.
3. Your children are legitimate by statute and are entitled to maintenance and to inherit from their parents.
4. The concealment made it worse for him, not for you — Section 82(2), and possibly Section 81, which is non-bailable and does not require you to prove a valid marriage at all.
5. Preserve everything — the invitation, the photographs, the messages in which he described himself as unmarried, the register entry. Your case is better documented than most.

How Section 82 sits beside the neighbouring sections

Our separate page on Section 85 — cruelty by a husband or his relatives deals with the section that is most often filed together with this one, and our page on Section 80 — dowry death deals with the most serious offence in the same chapter.

Frequently asked questions

Related pages

Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →