A short collection of Bigamy Judgments u/s 494 IPC/495 IPC.
- Priya Bala Ghosh Vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 Mar 1971 [SC: Acceptable proof necessary that the (alleged second) marriage of the accused was celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies as prescribed u/s 7 of HMA, such as Saptapadi and Homam]
- Santi Deb Berma Vs Kanchan Prava Devi on 10 Oct 1990 [SC: Acceptable proof necessary that the (alleged second) marriage of the accused was celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies as prescribed u/s 7 of HMA, such as Saptapadi and Homam]
- Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr on 14 Oct 1999 [SC: The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 of the I.P.C.]
- S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001 [SC: Unless a valid marriage is proved, a second marriage stands invalid and no offence under section 494 IPC attracts]
- K Neelaveni Vs State Rep By Inspector of Police and Ors on 22 Mar 2010 [SC: Clear ingredients of IPC 406 and 494; HC should NOT have quashed the FIR]
- A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 July, 2011 [SC: Due to State amendment, IPC 494 and IPC 495 are Cognizable and Non-bailable Offences in AP (and Telangana)]
- Kannan Vs Selvamuthukani on 30 Jan 2012 [SC: It has to be clearly established that the family members of Accused-husband knew that his divorce with his first wife was set aside before participating in the second marriage]
- Ushaben Vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors on 23 March, 2012 [SC: If a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of a non-cognizable offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report.]
- Miriyala Divya and 5 Others Vs Govt of AP on 19 September, 2014 [APHC: Magistrate can take cognizance of Sec 494 IPC complaint despite it having a rider u/s 198 CrPC. Explained]
- Saraswathi Vs Thirupathi and Anr on 24 Sep 2014 [MHC: Due to State amendment, as per Section 7A of HMA, tying thali, exchanging garlands are sufficient enough proof to attract IPC 494 and IPC 495 in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry]
- Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020 [AHC: No protection for Bigamers]
- Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021 [PHHC: No protection for Bigamers]
