Is it bigamy ?

YES, in general meaning it is bigamy.

But if the concerned three has no objection, then according to ipc readwith crpc it does not attract the provisions of concerned bigamy law of ipc & crpc.

yes it violates the HMA, sec 5 & 5(i). it will be a void marriage u/s 11.

the concerned act runs thus

5. A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (i)     Neither party has a spouse living at the time of the       marriage

11. Void marriages. Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5.

i read this case in news paper.

atleast 15 to 18 years ago, i read a similar type of case where two young boy married a girl. they were hapily   running their matrimony without dispute - as per the report of the magazine.

the place was dist madhubani, jharkhand.

Definitely it is Bigamy . But time save from law.

I agree with your views regarding IPC and CrPC, Arup Sir. But I do not think it violates s.5(1) of HMA either. Because a person is called as spouse only after he /she gets married. Here, in this particular case, no one is a spouse of other before marriage. 

I do not think it is bigamy under any provisions. And if we consider the intention of the legislations also, there is no offence when parties do not object to the second marriage at any time. We know only first wife can take action for offence of bigamy. When she has no issues, then it is as good as no offence.

Dear friends,

In this case, none of three has a living spouse before the marriage.

As pointed out by Arup, the statements of Law is very clear, that is any two Hindus and not not any three Hindus: that is two female with one male or two male with one female is clearly a case of  illegal marriage. More over, the statements of law is that conesnt of the parties no matter how joyously they entered can not cured the illegal acts as prohibited by law. Yes, it will be  a clear case of illegal marriage.

I agree with you, Assumi Sir.. But the question was whether it amounts to bigamy...   :)

Dear Suchitra, when there is no marriage we can not say that it is bigamy. There can not be a case of bigamy in anticipation? But if the marriage is solemnized says threesome or foursome it will be a void marriage under section 5  read with section 11 of the HMA. As the statements of law is very claer that is " between any two Hindus" and you know any two hindus mean twosome and not threesome etc. Any two hindus means any Two hindus, and we should not stretch the words and disturbed the intention and wisdom of the Parliament.

Dear Arup, your second posting regarding  that marriage in Jarkhand, I am of the view that it does attracts the offence of Bigamy.The "expression whoever marries"  mean whoever marries validly and not invalidly. But in the case of section 494 IPC, even when there is no marriage in the eye of law there can still be a case of bigamous marriage attracting section 494 IPC. Otherwise it will be very dangerous to the entire Hindu society in matrimonial matters. Say for example the party may make a mistake here and there in the marriage and put up a Defence that the marriage is void and NO Marriage and No Bigamy. As such, that Jarkhand marriage attracts section 494 IPC. But this is my personal observation.

Dr. Tripathi, isn't it true that technically one of them WILL have a living spouse at the time of marriage? Two marriages cannot take place at the same time. One has to follow the other even by a split second. If that is the case, there will be one couple for a second and there will be a single person before the second marriage. That marriage will be between a married man and an unmarried woman. Not sure if law is interpreted like that, but surely a competent lawyer will be able to argue and establish thus.

Kannan, i do appreciate your illustration.

Law recognizes Saptapadi as an important ritual than anything else. Tripathi Sir has told, that they have taken saptapadi together. So, there is no spouse to anybody among the three earlier to the marriage. There are Supreme Court case laws saying that manlgalsutra or any other ceremony is not essential rituals in a religious marriage.