Wife remarried while divorce was pending. Court said: that's not a token punishment.

She got married again while her first divorce was still in court. The trial judge gave her 1 year. The High Court reduced it to a few hours. Then the Supreme Court stepped in.

By the time the case reached the highest court, the wife had already remarried, had a child with her new husband, and been handed what the Supreme Court would later call a "flea-bite sentence" — imprisonment till the rising of the court, meaning she would be locked up at 10 AM and released by 4 PM the same day. The question before the bench was simple: does a serious crime like bigamy deserve a punishment that lasts less than a working day?

When the divorce papers were still pending

The story begins in Coimbatore, where a husband and wife were fighting a divorce case in the Family Court. While those proceedings — numbered HMOP 515/2012 — were still alive, the wife did something that the law forbids: she married another man. In November 2017, she even had a child with her new husband. The first husband, upon discovering this, filed a private criminal complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC — the provision that allows an individual to approach a magistrate directly instead of waiting for the police to file a case.

The charge was bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code — a law that makes it a crime to marry again while your first spouse is still alive and the first marriage has not been legally dissolved. The maximum punishment for this offence is seven years in prison.

The trial court — a Judicial Magistrate in Coimbatore — heard the evidence. The magistrate's gavel fell as both the wife and the man she married (the second accused) were convicted. Each was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment — hard labour — and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The husband's complaint against two other in-laws — accused Nos. 3 and 4 — was dismissed. The courtroom, filled with the rustle of case papers, recorded the verdict: guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

The seesaw of appeals

The wife and her new husband appealed to the Sessions Court — the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III in Coimbatore. On 19 April 2021, that court acquitted them entirely, reversing the trial judge's decision. The husband then went to the Madras High Court. The High Court bench sat in silence as the arguments unfolded, the lawyers' voices echoing off the marble walls. On 26 August 2022, the High Court reversed the acquittal and restored the conviction. But here is where the case took a strange turn.

The High Court, while agreeing that the offence of bigamy was proved, imposed a sentence that shocked the husband: imprisonment till the rising of the court — essentially a few hours of custody — plus a fine of Rs. 20,000 each. The husband, believing this was far too lenient for a crime that carries up to seven years, appealed to the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the sentence.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. And it did not mince words.

Why a few hours was not enough

The bench, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, examined the law on sentencing. The order sheet, dated 15 July 2024, noted the child's birth in November 2017 — a detail that would later shape the court's final order. The court observed that while the proviso to Section 418(1) of the CrPC — a provision that allows a court to impose imprisonment till the rising of the court as a valid form of custody — technically permits such a sentence where no minimum punishment is prescribed, that does not make it appropriate for every offence.

The court applied what it called the "rule of proportionality in sentencing." This principle holds that the punishment must match the gravity of the crime. Bigamy, the court observed, is a serious offence. Parliament had prescribed a maximum of seven years. There is an aggravated form under Section 495 IPC — bigamy with concealment of the first marriage — that carries up to ten years. The law also restricts the ability of parties to compound (settle) such cases privately — a signal that the state considers bigamy a matter of public concern, not just a private dispute between spouses.

The Supreme Court cited its own judgment in Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan, where it had held that no lenient view can be taken when bigamy is proved. It also referred to State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh and Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, among other precedents, to reinforce the point that sentencing must reflect the seriousness of the offence. The court also examined Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, Dalbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, Adamji Umar Dalal v. State of Bombay, and Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. v. State of Gujarat — each precedent reinforcing the principle that the sentence must match the crime.

"Imposition of imprisonment till the rising of the court," the bench held, "is unconscionably lenient and constitutes a flea-bite sentence that does not accord with the rule of proportionality." The courtroom fell silent as the judgment was read out — the words carried the weight of a court that had seen too many token punishments for serious offences.

The six-month compromise

The Supreme Court enhanced the sentence to six months of simple imprisonment each for the wife and her second husband. It reduced the fine from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,000 each — a move that shifted the weight of punishment from the wallet to actual time behind bars. The default sentence for non-payment of fine was set at three months.

But the court also showed a practical sensitivity. The couple had a young child — born in November 2017, now about six and a half years old. Ordering both parents to surrender simultaneously would leave the child without either parent. So the bench devised a staggered surrender plan: the second accused (the new husband) would surrender first and serve his six months. Within two weeks of his release, the wife would surrender and serve her term. This way, the child would always have at least one parent at home. The smell of old case files and the quiet hum of the courtroom seemed to underscore the court's humane approach — a legal system that could punish without destroying a family.

The acquittal of the two in-laws — accused Nos. 3 and 4 — was confirmed and not disturbed.

What this means for practitioners

The judgment sends a clear signal to trial courts and High Courts: the absence of a minimum sentence does not give a judge a free pass to impose a token punishment for a serious crime. The rule of proportionality requires that the sentence reflect the maximum prescribed by law, the nature of the offence, and the circumstances of the case. A few hours in custody for a crime that carries seven years is, in the Supreme Court's own words, "unconscionably lenient."

THE PLAY: When arguing for sentence enhancement in a bigamy case, cite Gopal Lal and the proportionality principle — the Supreme Court has now explicitly held that imprisonment till the rising of the court is a "flea-bite sentence" for an offence under Section 494 IPC.

The court ended where it began: with two marriages, one pending divorce, and a child who needed at least one parent home. The file, now closed, carried the final order — six months each, staggered, with the fine reduced and the acquittals confirmed. The gavel had fallen one last time.

Procedural journey: a timeline of shifting verdicts

The case, Baba Natarajan Prasad v. M. Revathi, wound its way through four tiers of the judiciary before reaching its final resolution. At each stage, the fate of the accused shifted — from conviction to acquittal to a token sentence, and finally to a meaningful term of imprisonment.

The private complaint under Section 200 CrPC was first heard by the Judicial Magistrate in Coimbatore, who convicted both the wife and the second accused under Section 494 IPC. The trial court imposed one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, while acquitting accused Nos. 3 and 4 — the in-laws whom the husband had also named in his complaint.

The wife and the second accused appealed to the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III in Coimbatore. On 19 April 2021, the Sessions Court allowed their appeals and acquitted them entirely, reversing the trial court's finding of guilt. The husband, dissatisfied with this outcome, also appealed against the acquittal of accused Nos. 3 and 4 and sought enhancement of the sentence — but his appeals were dismissed.

The matter then reached the Madras High Court. On 26 August 2022, the High Court reversed the Sessions Court's acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2, restoring their conviction under Section 494 IPC. However, the High Court imposed only imprisonment till the rising of the court — a sentence that lasts barely a few hours — along with a fine of Rs. 20,000 each. The acquittal of accused Nos. 3 and 4 was confirmed.

Finally, the husband appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking enhancement of what he considered a flea-bite sentence. On 15 July 2024, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, enhancing the sentence to six months of simple imprisonment each, reducing the fine to Rs. 2,000 each, and ordering staggered surrender to protect the couple's minor child. The acquittal of accused Nos. 3 and 4 was left undisturbed.

The legal framework: provisions that shaped the case

Several legal provisions were engaged in this case, each playing a distinct role in the proceedings. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code — the charged provision — makes it an offence for any person who, having a living spouse, marries again during the subsistence of the first marriage. The maximum punishment under this section is seven years of imprisonment, along with a fine. The court applied this provision to convict the wife and the second accused.

Section 495 IPC — a cross-reference provision — deals with the aggravated form of bigamy where the accused conceals the fact of the first marriage from the second spouse. This section carries a maximum punishment of ten years. While not directly charged in this case, the Supreme Court used its existence to underscore the seriousness with which Parliament views bigamy-related offences.

Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — the procedural vehicle — allows a private individual to file a complaint before a magistrate, who then examines the complainant on oath. The husband used this provision to initiate the criminal proceedings against his wife and the others, bypassing the need for a police investigation.

Section 418(1) CrPC — a supporting definition — governs the execution of sentences of imprisonment. Its proviso allows a court to impose imprisonment till the rising of the court as a valid form of custody. The Supreme Court interpreted this provision to hold that while such a sentence is technically intra vires where no minimum punishment is prescribed, its imposition for a serious offence like bigamy is unconscionably lenient and violates the rule of proportionality.

Precedents that guided the court

The Supreme Court relied on a series of its own judgments to reinforce the principle that sentencing must reflect the gravity of the offence. In Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan, the court had held that no lenient view can be taken where bigamy is proved — a principle that directly supported the enhancement of the sentence in this case.

In State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh and Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, the court had reiterated that sentencing must be proportionate to the crime. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. and State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, the court had examined the circumstances under which appellate courts may interfere with sentences imposed by lower courts.

In Dalbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Adamji Umar Dalal v. State of Bombay, the court had laid down principles regarding the exercise of sentencing discretion. Finally, in Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, the court had emphasized that sentences must serve the ends of justice and deterrence, not merely tokenism.

Each of these precedents reinforced the central holding of the case: that a flea-bite sentence for a serious offence like bigamy is a failure of judicial discretion, and that the rule of proportionality demands a punishment that matches the crime.

Practical takeaways for the bar

For criminal law practitioners, this judgment offers several actionable insights. First, when arguing for sentence enhancement in a bigamy case, the Gopal Lal precedent and the proportionality principle are now essential citations — the Supreme Court has explicitly held that imprisonment till the rising of the court is a flea-bite sentence for an offence under Section 494 IPC.

Second, the judgment clarifies that the absence of a minimum sentence does not give a judge unfettered discretion to impose a token punishment. The rule of proportionality requires that the sentence reflect the maximum prescribed by law, the nature of the offence, and the circumstances of the case. Trial courts and High Courts must now be prepared to justify any departure from a meaningful sentence.

Third, the staggered surrender order demonstrates that the Supreme Court is willing to balance the demands of justice with the practical realities of family life. Where a couple has a minor child, the court may order sequential surrender to ensure that the child is not left without parental care. This is a humane touch that practitioners can cite in appropriate cases.

Finally, the reduction of the fine from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,000 — while enhancing the imprisonment from a few hours to six months — signals that the court prioritizes actual incarceration over monetary penalties for serious offences. The weight of punishment, the court seems to say, should be measured in time, not in rupees.