Justice Murtaza Fazal Ali observed that when an individual enters into a second marriage while the first marriage is still in effect, they would be deemed guilty of bigamy under Section 494 if it can be demonstrated that the second marriage was legally valid, meaning that the requisite ceremonies mandated by law or custom were duly performed. The nullity of the marriage under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act constitutes a fundamental element of Section 494, as the second marriage is rendered void solely by the provisions of Section 17.

The court held that if an individual contract a second marriage during the subsistence of their first marriage, such a marriage, in addition to being void under Sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, also constitutes an offense. The individual would be subject to prosecution under Section 494 IPC. Notably, while Section 17 pertains specifically to marriages between Hindus, Section 494 does not specify any religious denomination.