SC Orders Jail Time For Woman, Second Husband For Committing Bigamy

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court sentenced a woman and her second husband to six months in prison for committing bigamy. The apex court opposed the Madras High Court ruling that adjourned the case by giving a flea-bite sentence to the couple. Read on to no more about the incident. 

Flea-bite sentence not enough: SC

As per the reports, the woman had married her second husband while the divorce with the first husband was still pending in the family court. Considering bigamy as a "serious offence which impacts the society", the apex court said that it cannot be dealt with with a light sentence. The court called the flea-bite sentence ordered by the Madras High Court as insufficient for a grave crime like bigamy.

Calling the flea-bite sentence as unconsciously lenient, the Supreme Court said, "The proviso to Section 418(1), CrPC, together with the penal provision under Section 494 IPC, prescribing no minimum imprisonment, but only the maximum, would definitely make the imposition of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ intra vires."

"In the matter of awarding sentence for conviction of an offence which may impact the society, it is not advisable to let off an accused after conviction with a flea-bite sentence," the bench said.

Petition filed by the woman's first husband

A bench led by CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar was hearing a petition filed by the woman's first husband opposing the ruling of the Madras High Court that condemned the woman and her second husband for a day of sentence until the rising of the court. 

Special arrangements made by SC for the child's welfare

However, since the couple had a 6-year-old child, the court directed that first, the father would serve the sentence of six months, followed by the mother having to surrender. This was done to ensure the well-being of the child. 

However, the court made it clear that this arrangement was only for special cases. The court said, "This arrangement shall not be treated as a precedent as it was ordered in these special circumstances." 

Why flea-bite sentence was not sufficient

The court said, "In the matter of awarding sentence for conviction of an offence which may impact the society, it is not advisable to let off an accused after conviction with a flea-bite sentence ... in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, [Courts must] impose a sentence in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment though it falls within the realm of judicial discretion."