A Delhi court found prima facie evidence that a husband was deceived into marriage by falsely claiming the wife was divorced, even though her first marriage was still subsisting.The order shows how evidence and Section 202 CrPC can protect men from matrimonial fraud at the very first stage.
NEW DELHI: In a strong reminder that truth and evidence still matter in matrimonial disputes, a Delhi court has ordered summoning of a wife and her father after finding that a husband was allegedly trapped into marriage on the false claim that the woman was already divorced.
The case 157/2024, PS Madhu Vihar, was decided on 28.01.2026 by the Ld. JMFC-04 at Karkardooma Courts. The husband was represented by Tripaksha Litigation through Advocate Vaibhav Nijhawan. The complaint was filed under Section 200 CrPC alleging deception at the very inception of marriage.
As per the court record, the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 22 January 2022 according to Hindu rites. The husband stated that before agreeing to the marriage, he was clearly informed that the woman was a divorcee and that no legal proceedings from her previous marriage were pending. This claim was allegedly supported by her biodata, her matrimonial profile on a marriage website, and repeated assurances given by her father.
The husband later discovered that the wife’s earlier marriage had never been legally dissolved because the second motion for divorce was not completed. This meant that her first marriage was still subsisting at the time of the second marriage, rendering the later marriage void from the beginning. The husband approached the criminal court alleging that he had been deliberately misled into a bigamous marriage.
During pre-summoning proceedings, the court allowed the complainant to lead evidence. The husband examined himself on oath and reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. An independent neighbour was also examined as a witness regarding incidents that took place after the marriage. The husband placed documentary material on record, including proof of marriage, online matrimonial records, and other related documents.
The Magistrate emphasised that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the court must carefully examine the available material before issuing process. The court noted that it cannot act as a silent spectator and must ensure that criminal law is not used casually, but at the same time, genuine victims are not denied access to justice.
To independently verify the allegations, the court exercised its power under Section 202 CrPC and ordered a limited inquiry through the police, specifically to ascertain whether the wife’s first marriage was still subsisting. This inquiry was not a full-fledged investigation but a focused verification exercise.
While deciding whether criminal law should be set into motion, the court reiterated that summoning an accused is a serious judicial act. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, the court reproduced the guiding principle:
“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused.
It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
The court also relied upon the recent Delhi High Court decision in Pooja Sharma Bajaj v. Kunal Bajaj, where the legal position on bigamy and summoning was discussed in detail.
The High Court observed:
“This Court takes note of the fact that the core issue, raised in these petitions, is as to whether the petitioner could sufficiently establish that a valid marriage had taken place between the accused no. 1 and 4 i.e. marriage by performing necessary rites and ceremonies, for the purpose of summoning the accused persons for committing offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC.”
The essential ingredients of bigamy were also noted:
“The essential ingredients of this offence are:
(1) that the accused spouse must have contracted the first marriage
(2) that while the first marriage was subsisting the spouse concerned must
have contracted a second marriage, and
(3) that both the marriages must be valid in the sense that the necessary
ceremonies required by the personal law governing the parties had been
duly performed.”
During this inquiry, the investigating officer submitted a report along with electronic material, including an audio recording. The court itself examined the recording. As per the order, the audio revealed that the father of the wife had assured the complainant that divorce had already been obtained and that there was no legal obstacle to the marriage. The court found this to be prima facie evidence of inducement and concealment of material facts.
After analysing the complaint, the pre-summoning evidence, the independent witness testimony, the documents, and the Section 202 CrPC inquiry report, the Magistrate concluded that there was sufficient material to proceed against the wife for the offence under Section 496 IPC. The court also found prima facie material against her father for offences under Sections 496 and 120B IPC, indicating conspiracy in inducing the complainant into the marriage.
At the same time, the court declined to summon other family members at this stage, observing that there was no specific material on record against them to justify criminal proceedings at this point.
This order is a clear reminder that matrimonial fraud can occur against men as well, particularly when marriages are entered into based on false representations about marital status. It also demonstrates that when husbands approach the court with documentary proof, independent witnesses, and electronic evidence, the legal system is capable of responding even at the initial stage.
The case further underlines the importance of Section 202 CrPC as a safeguard, ensuring that truth is verified before summons are issued, protecting both genuine complainants and innocent parties. The order reinforces the principle that matrimonial justice must remain evidence-based and gender-neutral, not driven by assumptions or stereotypes.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved In The Case
| Law / Section | Purpose of the Law (Simple Explanation) | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Section 200 CrPC | Allows a private person to file a criminal complaint before a Magistrate | Husband filed a complaint alleging deception and bigamy at the inception of marriage |
| Section 202 CrPC | Empowers Magistrate to order limited inquiry before summoning accused | Court ordered a focused police inquiry to verify if wife’s first marriage was still subsisting |
| Section 496 IPC | Punishes fraudulent marriage by concealing material facts | Wife was summoned as prima facie evidence showed marriage was induced by false divorce claim |
| Section 120B IPC | Punishes criminal conspiracy between two or more persons | Father was summoned for conspiring with daughter to induce the husband into marriage |
| Section 494 IPC | Punishes bigamy when first marriage is still valid | Alleged in complaint; legal principles discussed, but summoning ordered under Section 496 IPC |
| Section 495 IPC | Bigamy with concealment of former marriage | Referred in allegations as concealment of subsisting marriage |
| Section 420 IPC | Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property | Alleged as inducement to marry based on false representation |
| Section 406 IPC | Criminal breach of trust | Alleged in complaint regarding matrimonial conduct |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal intimidation | Alleged by complainant relating to post-marriage conduct |
Case Details
- Case Title: R G vs P A & Ors
- Case Number: CT Case No. 157/2024
- Police Station: PS Madhu Vihar
- Court & Bench: Court of Ld. JMFC-04, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts
- Presiding Judge: Sh. Udbhav Kumar Jain, JMFC-04
- Date of Order: 28.01.2026
- Counsel for Husband / Complainant: Tripaksha Litigation Through Vaibhav Nijhawan, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- A man can be a victim of matrimonial fraud when marriage is induced on false claims about a woman’s divorce status.
- Courts do not blindly summon accused; evidence, witnesses, and judicial scrutiny matter even at the first stage.
- Section 202 CrPC is a powerful safeguard for men to expose truth before criminal trials begin.
- Concealment of a subsisting marriage is a serious offence, not a private marital issue.
- Gender does not decide guilt; facts and proof do – and this order reinforces that principle.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.