A bigamist is unable to claim ancillary relief in the second marriage; would be against public policy. Since bigamy was a serious crime which undermined fundamental notions of monogamous marriage, the Court would not as a matter of public policy entertain an application for financial relief under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 from a person who had knowingly contracted a bigamous marriage since that would allow the bigamist to profit from her crime. Ward LJ echoed that bigamy is ‘an outrage upon public decency by the profanation of a solemn ceremony’ and ‘Where the criminal act undermines our fundamental notions of monogamous marriage I would be slow to allow a bigamist then to assert a claim, an entitlement at which she only arrives by reason of her offending. It is obviously proper that the Act of 1973 should afford the innocent party to a bigamous marriage relief. Where an applicant entered into another ‘marriage’ genuinely and reasonably believing he or she was free to do so, and was therefore innocent of the crime of bigamy, that person too may have an entitlement, though that is not the matter for us to consider today.
Today we have this respondent seeking to profit from the crime. Her claim derives from the crime. Without her having entered into this bigamous ceremony she would not have got to the judgment seat at all. She should now, in my judgment, be prevented from going any further.’
Henry LJ: ‘This case falls squarely within the principle that as a matter of policy the court will not lend its aid to one who, to succeed, must found her claim on a criminal offence of sufficient gravity, as this crime of bigamy in my judgment was.’
Russell LJ: ‘Bigamy is a crime which, of course, involves mens rea. There is no such person as an innocent bigamist. Bigamy, as opposed to mere cohabitation, strikes at the very heart of the institution of marriage. In these circumstances, the fact that this respondent has contracted a bigamous marriage would be a necessary foundation for her claim for financial relief under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
For a litigant to have to rely upon his or her criminal behaviour in order to get a claim on its feet is, in my judgment, offensive to the public conscience and contrary to public policy.’
Russell LJ: ‘Bigamy is a crime which, of course, involves mens rea. There is no such person as an innocent bigamist. Bigamy, as opposed to mere cohabitation, strikes at the very heart of the institution of marriage. In these circumstances, the fact that this respondent has contracted a bigamous marriage would be a necessary foundation for her claim for financial relief under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
For a litigant to have to rely upon his or her criminal behaviour in order to get a claim on its feet is, in my judgment, offensive to the public conscience and contrary to public policy.’
Judges:
Ward, Henry and Russell LJJ
Citations:
Ind Summary 08-May-1995, [1995] Fam 198
Statutes:
Matriminial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – J v S T (Formerly J) CA 21-Nov-1996
The parties had married, but the male partner was a transsexual, having been born female and having undergone treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria. After IVF treatment, the couple had a child. As the marriage broke down the truth was revealed in . .
Binding – Sudershan Kumar Rampal v Surendra Rampal CA 19-Jul-2001
The parties were divorced, but when the husband applied for ancillary relief, the wife petitioned for nullity on the basis that the marriage was bigamous. The husband countered that she had known that his first marriage had only ended after this . .
Cited – Witkowska v Kaminski ChD 25-Jul-2006
The claimant sought provision from the estate claiming to have lived with the deceased as his partner for the two years preceding his death. She appealed an order which would be enough to allow her to live in Poland, but not in England. She said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90449