Can In-Laws Be Prosecuted For Husband's Second Marriage? Supreme Court Answers

The Supreme Court has said that mere knowledge of a husband's second marriage is not enough to prosecute his relatives under Section 494 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 82(1) of the BNS] unless there is material to show they actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the marriage.

Setting aside a Kerala High Court order, Court quashed criminal proceedings against the in-laws of a woman who had accused her husband and his family members of dowry harassment and bigamy. Court held that vague allegations and the mere fact of being related to the husband could not justify prosecution.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by the accused in-laws and set aside the Kerala High Court's November 25, 2024 judgment, which had refused to quash a 2016 FIR registered under Sections 494 and 498A (corresponding to Section 85 of the BNS) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Section 3(5) of the BNS].

The high court had observed that the prosecution records did not support the appellants' contention that no case of cruelty was made out against them and that they had no knowledge of the second marriage.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that they were elderly persons who were not residing with the complainant during the relevant period and had no role in her marital life. They submitted that the complaint contained only vague and omnibus allegations unsupported by any independent material. According to them, their implication was based solely on their relationship with the husband and not on any specific act attributable to them.

The appellants also pointed to the delay in lodging the complaint. While the alleged incidents took place between 2007 and 2010, the FIR was registered only on August 24, 2016. They contended that the unexplained delay cast serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations and suggested that the complaint was an afterthought.

Relying on S Nitheen and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2024), they further argued that liability under Section 494, IPC cannot automatically be extended to relatives of the spouse who allegedly contracted a second marriage unless there is evidence showing their participation or facilitation.

The complainant, however, maintained that the appellants were not strangers to her marital life and had resided with her at the matrimonial home in Mavelikkara, Kerala. She alleged that they actively contributed to the physical and mental cruelty inflicted upon her and continuously encouraged the husband's conduct.

The Allegations Of Cruelty Against The In-Laws

Examining the case, the Supreme Court said the primary allegations in the complaint were directed against the husband and related to physical assault, dowry demands and mental harassment. In contrast, the allegations against the appellants largely consisted of claims that they were present during incidents or encouraged the husband's conduct.

The Bench noted that the FIR did not attribute any specific act of dowry demand, threat or physical assault to the appellants on any identifiable occasion.

"The FIR does not attribute to them any specific act of demand, threat, or physical assault on any identifiable occasion," Court observed.

According to the Bench, the allegations were general in nature and referred only to their presence and alleged encouragement, rather than describing specific acts that could independently constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Why Did The Supreme Court Quash The Bigamy Charge Against The In-Laws?

On the allegation relating to the husband's second marriage, Court found that the high court had relied on a witness statement to infer that the appellants were aware of the marriage. However, such inferential knowledge alone was insufficient to sustain prosecution.

The Bench reiterated that the law requires evidence of an overt act or omission and that mere awareness of a second marriage cannot establish common intention.

"While it has been alleged that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, mere knowledge that an act is being or has been committed by another person does not, by itself, establish the requisite common intention. Even proceeding on the basis that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, there is no allegation, let alone any material, to suggest that they actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of that marriage," Court held.

Holding that the allegations against the appellants lacked the necessary specificity and material support, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against them.

Case Title: Sivaraman Nair And Others Vs State of Kerala And Another

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: April 24, 2026