Polygamy in Nepal 2082/83 (2026) — Law, Penalty & Status

Under Section 175 of the National Penal Code 2074, imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of NPR 10,000 to 50,000.

No. The old illness, insanity and childlessness exceptions were removed when the Civil Code 2074 came into force in 2018; no such exception survives.

Polygamy is prohibited. The Civil Code 2074 bars a person who is already married from marrying again and makes any such second marriage void under Sections 70 and 72. The National Penal Code 2074 then criminalises it under Section 175 with imprisonment and a fine. The prohibition is uniform civil law and applies regardless of religion or community across Nepal.

It is void — invalid from the very beginning under Section 72 of the Civil Code 2074, because Section 70 bars marrying while already married. A void marriage is treated as if it never legally existed, so it creates no spousal rights or obligations. The parties may also face criminal liability under Section 175 of the Penal Code. The only lawful way to remarry is after the first marriage is legally dissolved.

No. A man who already has a living, lawfully married wife cannot take a second wife; the second marriage is void and a criminal offence. This applies regardless of religious or cultural practice, because the Civil Code 2074 is uniform civil law. The historical exceptions that once permitted a second wife in narrow circumstances were abolished in 2018, so there is no lawful basis for a man to have two wives at the same time.

No. The prohibition on a second marriage during a subsisting marriage applies to both spouses equally. A woman who is already married cannot lawfully marry again; the second marriage is void under the Civil Code 2074 and an offence under Section 175 of the Penal Code. The law is gender-neutral on this point, consistent with the equality framework of the 2015 Constitution that the Civil Code was drafted to implement.

In everyday terms bigamy means having two spouses and polygamy means having more than one, but Nepali law treats them the same way: any marriage entered into while an earlier marriage subsists is void and criminal. The number of additional marriages does not change the legal consequence — each is void, and the offence under Section 175 of the Penal Code is committed by marrying again while already married.

Section 175 of the National Penal Code 2074 provides for imprisonment of one to five years, together with a fine of NPR 10,000 to 50,000. The precise sentence within that range depends on the facts of the case and the court's assessment. Because a limitation period under Section 176 runs from when the aggrieved party learns of the offence, a complaint should be made promptly to preserve the criminal remedy.

Yes, significantly. The Civil Code 2074, in force from 2018, removed the narrow exceptions in the old Muluki Ain that had allowed a husband to take a second wife where the first wife was incurably ill, of unsound mind, or childless after years of marriage. Under the current law no such exception exists, and a second marriage during a subsisting marriage is uniformly void, reinforcing the equality and dignity guarantees of the Constitution.

No. A second marriage performed through a religious or social ceremony while a first marriage subsists is still void in law and exposes the parties to criminal liability. The ceremony may have social significance, but it does not create the legal status of marriage. Treating such a union as valid is a common and costly mistake, because it leaves the second spouse unprotected and the parties open to prosecution under Section 175.

Yes. A first spouse can file a criminal complaint under Section 175 of the Penal Code within the limitation period in Section 176, and on the civil side can assert that the second marriage is void, protect marital and ancestral property, and seek divorce with maintenance and partition. The two tracks run in parallel. Because the limitation clock starts on discovery of the second marriage, prompt legal advice helps preserve all available remedies.

Because the second marriage is void, the second wife does not acquire the legal status of a wife and has none of the spousal rights to partition or maintenance that flow from a valid marriage. She may have been deceived about the man's existing marriage, which can be relevant to other remedies, but the marriage itself confers no spousal entitlement. Anyone in this position should take individual legal advice on what protections, if any, are available on the facts.

The position of children is more nuanced and fact-specific. A child's rights to maintenance, identity and protection are safeguarded by the Children's Act 2075 regardless of the parents' marital status, so a child is not punished for the parents' conduct. However, inheritance and partition questions arising from a void marriage can be complex and depend on the facts, so they should be assessed with individual legal advice rather than assumed.

Yes. Once a marriage is legally dissolved by divorce — or ended by the death of a spouse — there is no longer a subsisting marriage, and a person is free to marry again lawfully. This is the proper route for anyone who wishes to enter a new marriage: end the existing marriage first through the divorce process, then remarry. Doing so avoids the void-marriage consequence and the criminal liability that attach to a second marriage during a subsisting one.

Yes. The Civil Code 2074 is uniform civil law and applies regardless of the religion or community of the parties, so the prohibition on a second marriage during a subsisting marriage binds everyone. There is no religion-specific exemption permitting polygamy. Cultural or religious ceremonies do not change the legal position, and a second marriage remains void and criminal whatever tradition it is performed under.

Under Section 176 of the National Penal Code 2074, a complaint relating to polygamy is subject to a limitation period that generally runs from the date the aggrieved party becomes aware of the offence. Because the period is short, a first spouse who discovers a bigamous marriage should seek advice and act quickly to preserve the criminal remedy. Missing the limitation window can bar the prosecution even where the second marriage is clearly void.

The person who marries again while already married commits the offence under Section 175, and a person who knowingly marries someone they know to be already married can also be liable. Liability turns on knowledge and participation in the unlawful marriage. The first spouse, who is the aggrieved party, is not liable. Because liability is fact-dependent, anyone facing or considering such a situation should obtain specific legal advice on their exposure.

No. A marriage that breaches the bar on marrying while already married is void, and a void marriage cannot acquire validity through registration. Registration records a lawful marriage; it does not cure an unlawful one. Attempting to register a second marriage while a first subsists does not protect the parties and does not give the second spouse rights, and the underlying offence under Section 175 remains.

Consult a lawyer if you discover a spouse has married again, if you are being pressured into or considering a second marriage, or if you wish to remarry and must end an existing marriage lawfully first. A lawyer explains the void-marriage consequence under Sections 70 and 72, the criminal exposure under Section 175, the limitation period under Section 176, and the protective steps available to a first spouse, helping you act correctly and in time.