Proof of a valid second marriage — with proper ceremonies — is the classic sticking point in bigamy prosecutions under Section 494 IPC. But at the process stage, the question is not proof; it is prima facie material. In Avinash Gopal Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 2542 of 2022, decided 9 October 2026), the Bombay High Court refused to quash the issuance of process against a man alleged to be the second husband, holding that long cohabitation, a police verification certificate describing him as the woman's husband, and the statements of the estate agent and society office-bearers raised a strong presumption of marriage that a bare denial could not dislodge. The trial will go on.
The background
The complainant married his wife in Delhi in 2002; the couple moved to Mumbai, and she left the matrimonial home in 2014, with divorce proceedings following in the Family Court. The complainant later discovered that his wife was living in a rented flat in Andheri West with the petitioner — and that a police verification certificate for the tenancy described the petitioner as her husband. His private complaint led the Metropolitan Magistrate, after a Section 202 CrPC inquiry, to issue process in March 2020 for the offence under Section 494 IPC against both the wife and the petitioner. The Sessions Court dismissed the revision in 2022, and the petitioner carried the challenge to the High Court.
The material that mattered
The tenancy verification certificate described the petitioner as the woman’s husband — a document generated in the ordinary course, not for litigation.
The real estate agent and housing society office-bearers spoke to the couple presenting themselves as spouses.
Years of continuous residence together completed the factual platform for the presumption of marriage.
Against this, the petitioner offered no oral or documentary material — only a denial, which the Court held insufficient to rebut the presumption.
The presumption and its limits
Justice Milind N. Jadhav anchored the decision in the settled principle that “a strong presumption arises in favour of marriage when two persons who not only live together” but hold themselves out as husband and wife — and that “this presumption can only be rebutted by unshakable evidence.” The provision invoked was Section 50 of the Evidence Act (now Section 44 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), under which conduct and repute are relevant to prove relationship.
The petitioner’s central argument — that cohabitation is not proof of a valid marriage with saptapadi and requisite ceremonies, and that a bigamy charge demands strict proof of the second marriage — is doctrinally sound, but it is a trial argument. At the quashing stage, the Court found “no prima facie material on record to quash the trial,” vacated the interim stay that had operated since 2022, and directed the trial to continue. It also allowed the petitioner to amend his petition to formally challenge the Sessions Court order — while making clear that nothing in the ruling touches the merits.
The distinction is worth underlining for every matrimonial-offence brief: the presumption of marriage from cohabitation serves civil purposes (legitimacy, maintenance, succession) readily, and at the pre-trial criminal stage it can sustain process. But conviction under Section 494 still requires proof of a second marriage validly solemnised — the stricter standard operates at trial, not at the threshold.
Practical significance
For complainants: documents generated in the ordinary course — tenancy verifications, society records, school forms naming a “spouse” — are the most persuasive prima facie material in bigamy complaints, precisely because they predate the dispute.
For the defence: a quashing petition built on the strict-proof-of-ceremonies argument alone is unlikely to succeed where cohabitation and repute are documented. The rebuttal evidence — distinct residences, the true nature of the relationship, the absence of any marriage — must be marshalled for trial.
On parallel proceedings: bigamy allegations frequently travel with divorce, maintenance and domestic violence litigation. Positions taken in each forum are read against parties in the others; consistency across the matrimonial docket is not optional.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a complainant show for process to issue in a bigamy case?
At the process stage the Magistrate needs prima facie material that the accused spouse, with a subsisting first marriage, contracted or entered a second marital relationship. Here a Section 202 CrPC inquiry preceded process, and the material included a police verification certificate describing the petitioner as the woman's husband, witnesses from the building, and years of cohabitation. Whether a valid second marriage with requisite ceremonies is ultimately proved is a matter for trial.
What is the presumption of marriage from cohabitation?
Where a man and woman live together continuously and present themselves to the world as husband and wife, the law raises a strong presumption in favour of marriage — reflected in Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (opinion on relationship) and now Section 44 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The presumption is rebuttable, but as this judgment reiterates, only by unshakable evidence, not a bare denial.
Can the second "spouse" be prosecuted along with the married partner?
Yes. While Section 494 is directed at the spouse who marries again during the subsistence of the first marriage, the person who knowingly enters that marriage can face prosecution with the aid of abetment or common-intention provisions, which is why process in this case ran against both the wife and the petitioner.
Does refusal to quash mean the accused is guilty?
No. The Court expressly recorded that its order was not on merits. Quashing is refused when prima facie material exists; the prosecution must still prove a valid second marriage and every other ingredient beyond reasonable doubt at trial, where the defence evidence will be weighed.