UTTAR PRADESH:<\/em> The Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong> has held that a person whose second marriage is legally void cannot automatically be treated as a \u201chusband\u201d for offences under Sections 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita<\/a> (BNS)<\/strong>, unless specific exceptions apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal<\/strong> observed that in penal provisions, the term \u201chusband\u201d requires strict interpretation<\/strong> and generally refers to a legally married spouse. The Court was hearing a bail application filed by Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal<\/em><\/strong> in a case involving allegations under Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS and Sections 3\/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The applicant argued that his marriage to the deceased was his second marriage, entered into during the lifetime of his first wife. Since the marriage itself was void, he claimed he could not be treated as a \u201chusband\u201d<\/strong> under Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court examined whether a person entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage can be covered by the definition of \u201chusband\u201d <\/strong>for criminal liability purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The word “husband” in Section 80 BNS as well as Section 85 B.N.S. will cover a person only when he is legally married to a woman, not a person whose marriage is itself void with a woman.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court relied upon earlier Supreme Court judgments including Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P.<\/em><\/strong> and P. Sivakumar v. State<\/em><\/strong>, where it was held that a person in a void second marriage cannot be convicted under Section 498A IPC, corresponding to Section 85 BNS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench further observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “In penal statutes like Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS, the term ‘husband’ is strictly interpreted to mean a legally wedded spouse.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also clarified that if there is uncertainty regarding the validity of the first marriage, or if a person hides the existence of a legally valid spouse from the second wife, the situation may be different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “When a person performed second marriage to a woman without disclosing his validly married living spouse and continued to live with his second wife as her husband and second wife is also not aware about this fact till commission of this offence, in that case also he will be deemed as husband for the purpose of section 80 and 85 BNS as he can not be allowed to take advantage of his wrong.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that a second marriage performed while the first marriage is subsisting is void under laws including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Special Marriage Act<\/a>, 1954<\/strong>, and other personal marriage laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Considering the legal issues and other circumstances of the case, including the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in custody since January 2026, the High Court granted bail to Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> What It Means<\/strong><\/td> Relevance In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 80 BNS<\/strong><\/td> Deals with presumption relating to dowry death<\/td> Court examined whether this provision applies when the accused is not legally a husband<\/td><\/tr> Section 85 BNS<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for cruelty by husband or relatives of husband<\/td> Court held strict interpretation of \u201chusband\u201d is required in criminal law<\/td><\/tr> Section 118 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam<\/a> (BSA)<\/strong><\/td> Presumption regarding dowry death<\/td> Court held such presumptions must be applied only after legal requirements are fulfilled<\/td><\/tr> Sections 3\/4 Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a>, 1961<\/strong><\/td> Relates to giving, taking and demanding dowry<\/td> Allegations were considered along with other criminal charges<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Governs validity of Hindu marriages<\/td> Second marriage during the lifetime of existing spouse is void<\/td><\/tr> Section 483 BNSS (earlier Section 439 CrPC)<\/strong><\/td> High Court\/Sessions Court power to grant bail<\/td> Applicant approached Court seeking release during trial<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Particulars<\/strong><\/td> Details<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal vs State of U.P.<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> High Court of Judicature at Allahabad<\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td> 2026:AHC:151064<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22566 of 2026<\/td><\/tr> Date of Judgment<\/strong><\/td> 22 July 2026<\/td><\/tr> Applicant<\/strong><\/td> Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal<\/td><\/tr> Opposite Party<\/strong><\/td> State of U.P.<\/td><\/tr> Counsel for Applicant<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Suneel Kumar<\/td><\/tr> Counsel for State<\/strong><\/td> Ms Mayuri Mehrotra, Mr Rakesh Kumar Mishra<\/td><\/tr> Nature of Petition<\/strong><\/td> Bail application involving Sections 80, 85 BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n