IPC 494 vs BNS 82: Bigamy Changes Explained (2026)

In India, Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. Bigamy remains punishable with up to seven years and fine (Section 82(1)), or up to ten years and fine where the former marriage was concealed (Section 82(2)). Only the numbering and cross-references change.

For the wider set of marriage offences — deceitful cohabitation, fraudulent marriage ceremonies, the omission of adultery, and cruelty — see bigamy, adultery and marriage offences under the BNS. This page covers bigamy in depth.

At a glance

IPC	BNS	Offence	Punishment (BNS text)	Classification (BNSS First Schedule)	Change
494	82(1)	Marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife, where the marriage is void for that reason	Imprisonment of either description up to 7 years, and fine	Non-cognizable; bailable; Magistrate of the first class	Minor edit
495	82(2)	The same offence, having concealed the former marriage from the new spouse	Up to 10 years, and fine	Non-cognizable; bailable; Magistrate of the first class	Minor edit

The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 494 and 495 IPC the same way (the "Ditto" entries trace to the Section 493 row, non-cognizable, and to "Magistrate of the first class").

What changed

Minor edit — Section 82(1) (IPC 494): the offence words are the same: "Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife". The punishment is the same — up to seven years "and shall also be liable to fine". The Exception now opens "This sub-section does not extend to" instead of "This section does not extend to"; both limbs of the Exception are otherwise word for word the same.
Minor edit — Section 82(2) (IPC 495): "Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section" becomes "Whoever commits the offence under sub-section (1)". The concealment element and the punishment (up to ten years and fine) are the same. The offence is now a sub-section rather than a separate section.
Identical — classification: both sub-sections are non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class, as Sections 494 and 495 IPC were.
Identical — compounding: Section 359(2) BNSS lists Section 82(1), compoundable by "The husband or wife of the person so marrying" with the court's permission, exactly as Section 320(2) CrPC listed Section 494. Neither lists the concealment offence.
Minor edit — complaint rule (procedure): Section 219 BNSS re-enacts Section 198 CrPC. It now names "sections 81 to 84" of the BNS instead of "Chapter XX" of the IPC, and in proviso (a) refers to a person who is "a child, or is of unsound mind or is having intellectual disability requiring higher support needs" in place of a person "under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic".
Minor edit — place of trial: Section 202(2) BNSS repeats Section 182(2) CrPC, with "section 494 or section 495 of the Indian Penal Code" replaced by "section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023": the offence may be tried where it was committed, where the offender last resided with the spouse of the first marriage, or where the wife of the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the offence.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 495 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Extract, Section 82 BNS:

(1) Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Exception.—This sub-section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.

(2) Whoever commits the offence under sub-section (1) having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

How it works — the ingredients

The Supreme Court stated the ingredients of Section 494 IPC in S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami: "(i) the accused must have contracted the first marriage; (ii) whilst the first marriage was subsisting, the accused must have contracted a second marriage; and (iii) both the marriages must be valid in the sense that necessary ceremonies governing the parties must have been performed." Section 82(1) BNS uses the same words, so on a reading of the text the same elements apply.

A living husband or wife — the first marriage subsists and the first spouse is alive at the time of the second marriage.
A second marriage — "marries". In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande, the Court read this as "whoever... marries validly": a ceremony that does not create a valid marriage under the law applicable to the parties is "no marriage in the eye of law". The prosecution must prove the ceremonies the parties' law requires, or a custom that has displaced them.
Void for that reason — the second marriage must be void "by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife". Whether it is void depends on the personal law or statute governing the parties. In Sarla Mudgal, the Court held that "void" in Section 494 is used "in the wider sense".

Aggravated form — Section 82(2). The prosecution must also prove that the accused concealed the fact of the former marriage from the person whom he or she married.

The two exceptions. Section 82(1) does not extend to:

a person whose marriage with the first spouse "has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction"; or
a person whose first spouse has been "continually absent from such person for the space of seven years" and not heard of as alive within that time — but only if, before the second marriage, that person informs the new spouse "of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge".

Who is aggrieved. Section 219(1) BNSS allows a court to take cognizance only "upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence". Where the aggrieved person under Section 82 is the wife, clause (c) of the proviso allows a complaint on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter, or her father's or mother's brother or sister, or, with the leave of the court, any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. Section 219(7) applies the rule to abetment of and attempt to commit the offence.

What this means in practice

For the first spouse (complainant)

File a complaint before the Magistrate. Section 219(1) BNSS permits cognizance only "upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence", and the offence is non-cognizable.
Gather proof of both marriages, including evidence of the ceremonies performed at the second marriage — who officiated, what rites were performed, and any custom the parties rely on. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and S. Nagalingam turned on exactly this evidence.
Choose the court: under Section 202(2) BNSS, the place where the offence was committed, where the accused last lived with the first spouse, or where the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the offence.
For concealment (Section 82(2)), evidence that the new spouse was not told of the first marriage.

For the accused and defence advocate

Test whether the second marriage is proved to have been solemnised with the essential ceremonies under the applicable law.
Check the Exception: a decree declaring the first marriage void, or seven years' continual absence with disclosure to the new spouse.
Check standing: a complaint by someone who is not an aggrieved person, or not within proviso (c), is barred by Section 219(1).
Both sub-sections are bailable. Section 82(1) may be compounded by the spouse with the court's permission (Section 359(2) BNSS); Section 82(2) may not.

Judgments that still matter

Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [1965] 2 S.C.R. 837 (1965 INSC 16) — 1 February 1965. A three-Judge Bench (Raghubar Dayal, J.R. Mudholkar and V. Ramaswami JJ.; judgment by Raghubar Dayal J.) held that "Prima facie, the expression 'whoever.... marries' must mean 'whoever... marries validly'". Reading Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court held that a marriage is "solemnized" only if celebrated "with proper ceremonies and in due form". The prosecution had not proved that invocation before the sacred fire and saptapadi, which the Court treated as essential, were performed, or that a custom had abrogated them; so the second marriage did not attract Section 494. The convictions under Section 494 and Section 494 read with Section 114 IPC were set aside and the appellants acquitted. The report does not show paragraph numbers.

Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1995] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 250 (1995 INSC 363) — 10 May 1995. In the judgment of Kuldip Singh J. (R.M. Sahai J. concurring separately), the Court held that "the second marriage of a Hindu husband after his conversion to islam is a void marriage in terms of Section 494 IPC." Conversion to Islam "would not, by itself, dissolve the Hindu marriage", so a second marriage by the convert without dissolving the first is in violation of the Hindu Marriage Act and void; and "The expression 'void' under section 494, IPC has been used in the wider sense." The report does not show paragraph numbers.

Lily Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [2000] 3 S.C.R. 1081 (2000 INSC 293) — 5 May 2000. S. Saghir Ahmad and R.P. Sethi JJ., in separate concurring judgments, disposed of review and writ petitions challenging Sarla Mudgal. Sethi J. rejected the argument that Sarla Mudgal could not apply to marriages solemnised before it, holding that the Court "had not laid down any new law but only interpreted the existing law", and that the review petition alleging violation of Article 20(1) was "without any substance". Saghir Ahmad J. stated that prosecution under Section 494 "in respect of a second marriage under Mohammedan Law can be avoided only if the first marriage was also under the Mohammedan Law". The report does not show paragraph numbers.

S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami — Supreme Court, 31 August 2001. D.P. Mohapatra and K.G. Balakrishnan JJ. (judgment by Balakrishnan J.) dismissed a husband's appeal against his conviction under Section 494 IPC. It stated the three ingredients quoted above and held that "the second marriage should be proved to be a valid marriage according to the personal law of the parties". Applying Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act as inserted by Tamil Nadu, the Court held that a marriage in the presence of relatives or friends, completed by exchanging garlands, was valid for parties resident in Tamil Nadu, so saptapadi was not required and the offence was proved. The report does not show paragraph numbers.

Using older case law under Section 82. The operative words of Section 82 repeat Sections 494 and 495 IPC, so, on a reading of the text, judgments construing "marries", "void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife" and the Exception remain relevant to Section 82.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS provides that the repeal of the IPC does not affect any penalty or punishment incurred under it, and that proceedings may be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that provision, a second marriage contracted before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 494 or 495 IPC. Procedure in matters pending on that date continues under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Because the punishments are the same, on a reading of Article 20(1) of the Constitution no question of a heavier penalty arises. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Sections 494 and 495 IPC? Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces both. Section 82(1) is the bigamy offence that was Section 494 IPC, and Section 82(2) is the aggravated form, with concealment of the former marriage, that was Section 495 IPC. The words and punishments are the same apart from cross-references.

What is the punishment for bigamy under Section 82 BNS? Under Section 82(1) BNS, marrying again while a husband or wife is living, where the marriage is void for that reason, is punishable with imprisonment of either description up to seven years and fine. Under Section 82(2), where the former marriage was concealed from the new spouse, the maximum is ten years and fine. Sections 494 and 495 IPC carried the same punishments.

Is bigamy a cognizable or bailable offence under the BNSS? The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lists both Section 82(1) and Section 82(2) BNS as non-cognizable and bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 494 and 495 IPC the same way.

Who can file a bigamy case? Section 219(1) BNSS bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence under Sections 81 to 84 BNS except on a complaint by some person aggrieved by the offence. Where the aggrieved person under Section 82 is the wife, clause (c) of the proviso lets her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter, her father's or mother's brother or sister, or, with the court's leave, another relative by blood, marriage or adoption complain on her behalf. Section 198 CrPC was to the same effect.

When is a second marriage not bigamy? The Exception to Section 82(1) BNS excludes a person whose earlier marriage has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction. It also excludes a person whose spouse has been continually absent for seven years and not heard of as alive in that time, provided that person informs the new spouse of the real facts before the marriage. In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (1965 INSC 16), the Supreme Court also held that the second marriage must be proved to be a valid marriage, performed with the ceremonies the law applicable to the parties requires.

Can a bigamy case be compromised? Under Section 359(2) BNSS, an offence under Section 82(1) BNS may be compounded by the husband or wife of the person so marrying, with the permission of the court. Section 82(2), bigamy with concealment, is not listed. Section 320(2) CrPC treated Section 494 IPC the same way and did not list Section 495.

Which law applies to a second marriage before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings continue as if the IPC had not been repealed, so on a reading of that provision a second marriage before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 494 or 495 IPC. Because the punishments are the same, the change of section number does not by itself alter the sentence range.

Sources

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 81 to 84 and 358.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 493 to 498.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 202(2), 219, 359(2) and 531(2)(a), and the First Schedule entries for Section 82 BNS.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 182(2), 198 and 320(2), and the First Schedule entries for Sections 493 to 496 IPC.
Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
Judgments read in full text: Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (1965_2_837_844_EN.md); Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (S_1995_1_250_270_EN.md); Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000_3_1081_1121_EN.md); S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (S_2001_2_454_462_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Sections 494-495 IPC vs Section 82 BNS — Bigamy