Man Living in Void Second Marriage Is Not a "Husband" Under Sections 80 and 85 BNS.

The applicant sought bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 2026 involving charges under Sections 80(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The applicant’s second wife died under unnatural circumstances (poisoning) within seven years of marriage.

The applicant argued that since the marriage occurred while his first wife was alive and the first marriage was subsisting, the second marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act; therefore, he could not be legally defined as a "husband" for the purposes of dowry death or cruelty.

The Court relied on the three-judge bench decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007), which held that prosecution under Section 498-A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) is not maintainable if the marriage is null and void.

This was reinforced by P. Sivakumar v. State (2023).

The Court applied the principle of strict interpretation of penal statutes as emphasized in M/s. Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. and Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay, which dictates that if two reasonable constructions exist, the court must lean toward the one exempting the subject from penalty.

It distinguished Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004), noting that despite its purposive approach, the subsequent larger bench in Shivcharan Lal Verma prevails.

The Court reasoned that because the BNS and BSA are penal in nature, they cannot be extended by reading in words not present in the statute.

While acknowledging the "mischief rule" used in Reema Aggarwal to protect women in void marriages, the Court held it was bound by the larger bench's literal and strict interpretation in Shivcharan Lal Verma.

The Court determined that "husband" generally implies a "married man who has a lawful spouse living."

However, the Court carved out exceptions: a person is still deemed a "husband" if the validity of the first marriage is doubtful (as criminal courts cannot decide matrimonial validity) or if the man fraudulently concealed his first marriage from the second wife.

Since the facts here showed both parties were aware of the subsisting first marriage, the legal relationship of "husband" and "wife" was not established under the personal laws governing the parties (Hindu Marriage Act).

Regarding the merits, the Court granted bail to the applicant, noting the charge sheet had been filed, the applicant had no criminal history, and the legal maintainability of the BNS charges was questionable due to the void nature of the marriage. The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties.