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 that they actively participated in, facilitated or encouraged the marriage.
Quashing a Kerala High Court order, the court quashed criminal proceedings against the in-laws of a woman who had accused her husband and his relatives of dowry harassment and bigamy. The court held that vague accusations and the mere fact of being related to the husband could not justify prosecution.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih accepted an appeal filed by the accused in-laws and set aside the ruling of the Kerala High Court dated November 25, 2024, 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 contention of the appellants that no case of cruelty had been filed against them and that they had no knowledge of the second marriage.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that they were elderly people who did not reside with the plaintiff during the relevant period and played no role in her marital life. They maintained that the complaint contained only vague and general accusations that were not supported by any independent material. According to them, their involvement was based solely on their relationship with her husband and not on any specific act that was attributable to them.
The appellants also pointed out the delay in filing the complaint. While the alleged incidents took place between 2007 and 2010, the FIR was not registered until August 24, 2016. They maintained 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), further argued that liability under Section 494 of the IPC cannot be automatically extended to the family members of the spouse who allegedly entered into a second marriage unless there is evidence to prove their involvement or facilitation.
The plaintiff, 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 on her and continually encouraged the husband’s conduct.
Accusations of cruelty against in-laws
Examining the case, the Supreme Court said the main allegations in the complaint were directed against the husband and related to physical assault, dowry demands and mental harassment. Rather, the allegations against the appellants consisted largely of claims that they were present during the incidents or encouraged the husband’s conduct.
The Court noted that the FIR did not attribute any specific act of demand for dowry, threat or physical assault on 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.” The court observed.
According to the Court, the allegations were of a general nature and concerned only his presence and alleged encouragement, rather than describing specific acts that could independently constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.
Why did the Supreme Court overturn the bigamy charge against the in-laws?
As to the allegation relating to the husband’s second marriage, the court concluded that the high court had relied on the evidence of a witness to infer that the appellants had knowledge of the marriage. However, that inferential knowledge alone was insufficient to support processing.
The Court reiterated that the law requires proof of a manifest act or omission and that mere knowledge of a second marriage cannot establish a 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 on the basis that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, there is no allegation, much less any material, to suggest that they actively participated in, facilitated or encouraged the solemnization of that marriage,” the Court held.
Considering that the accusations against the appellants lacked the necessary specificity and material support, the Supreme Court annulled the proceedings against them.
Case Title: Sivaraman Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Another
Judges: Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih
Sentence Date: April 24, 2026
