The Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (MoLJPA) recently introduced a draft amendment to Section 175 of the National Penal Code Act, 2017 concerning the conditions under which a marriage is deemed void. The proposal drew widespread opposition from Parliament, women’s rights activists, human rights defenders and the public for containing a controversial provision: if a child is born or a woman is pregnant from a second relationship, that relationship would not be voided solely for being polygamous. Critics and rights advocates have termed the clause “regressive,” warning it creates a legal loophole that legitimizes polygamy.
Against this backdrop, this article begins by outlining the core provisions of the proposed amendment to the National Penal Code. It then critically examines the underlying logic driving the proposal, highlighting its internal weaknesses and inconsistencies. The discussion proceeds to interrogate the deeper assumptions embedded in the lawmaking process—particularly the troubling stereotype about men’s nature and behavior that the amendment appears to endorse—and demonstrates why these assumptions are both inaccurate and harmful. Finally, the article explains how the proposed amendment contradicts Nepal’s national legal framework and concludes with recommendations for a constructive way forward.
Explanation of the provision
Nepal banned polygamy more than 60 years ago with the introduction of the Muluki Ain (National Code) in 1963, which made polygamy a punishable offence but did not allow such marriages to be annulled. This changed in 2017 when the National Penal Code Act 2017 introduced a provision in Section 175 that automatically voids a second marriage if the first one is still legally valid. The Criminal Code also set penalties under Section 175, stating that a man who marries another woman while still married can face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to Rs 50,000.
The proposed amendment mentions that if a child has already been born from the marital relationship or if the woman is pregnant, such marriage shall not be annulled solely on the grounds that the person has been punished for the offence of polygamy. This is a significant deviation from the earlier provision, which automatically voided a second marriage if the first marriage was still valid. Critics argue that this proposed clause could make it easier for individuals to commit polygamy by simply serving the punishment while retaining the marriage.
When logic takes a backseat
“If a man no longer shares a heartfelt relationship with his wife and then develops a relationship with another woman—resulting in the birth of a child—yet does not formalize the relationship through marriage, the second woman’s life can be devastated. In many such cases, a large number of women end up abandoned and on the streets”, this quote from the Secretary of the Ministry of Law Parashwor Dhungana summarizes the key logic presented by the amendment proposer to the law. But a thorough examination of the logic behind the proposed amendment exposes deeply flawed assumptions. The proposal starts with the premise that some men engage in extramarital affairs—and assumes these affairs inevitably involve physical intercourse. It then leaps to the conclusion that such intercourse will almost certainly lead to conception and the birth of a child. Based on this shaky foundation, the amendment argues that the mother and child born from such unions will face legal, social and cultural hardships if the second marriage is annulled. The solution? Legalize polygamy to “protect” their rights.
But this so-called protection hides a troubling contradiction. While it claims to protect women and children, it ends up encouraging extramarital affairs, approving relationships outside marriage and even allowing men to father children in such situations. In doing so, it risks making polygamy seem acceptable, all under the cover of safeguarding rights.
Worse still, the provision allows this cycle to continue indefinitely, limited only by a man’s reproductive capacity. It effectively permits men to bypass existing anti-polygamy laws and engage in multiple simultaneous marriages. This undermines the very legal and moral framework that sustains monogamous marriage and family integrity.
Creatures of uncontrollable urges?
The proposed amendment assumes men are driven primarily by uncontrollable sexual urges and biological imperatives, effectively stripping them of their agency, responsibility and dignity. This depiction reduces men to nothing more than violent actors whose actions must be tolerated or legally accommodated, regardless of the moral or social consequences. Such a portrayal is a serious mischaracterization that unjustly paints men as incapable of self-control, fidelity, or respect for the law.
This assumption is not only inaccurate but profoundly unfair. It denies men their capacity for ethical decision-making and holds them to a double standard that excuses illegal behavior under the guise of biological necessity. To portray men as inherently unable to resist extramarital relationships or as individuals whose reproductive acts supersede their legal obligations is to condemn them unjustly and deny their full humanity.
Furthermore, this portrayal entrenches harmful stereotypes that reinforce patriarchal norms, suggesting that men deserve special legal privileges simply because their biology “demands” it. This is not only damaging to men’s social and moral standing but also undermines the principles of justice, equality, and personal accountability that any fair legal system must uphold.
Contradiction with legal framework
The proposed amendment, though intended to protect mothers and children, contradicts Nepal’s constitutional provisions, national laws and international human rights obligations. It undermines the Muluki Civil Code, 2017, and the National Criminal (Penal) Code, 2017, which criminalize polygamy and safeguard marital equality. Constitutionally, it breaches Article 38, which guarantees women’s rights, and Article 18, which ensures equality before the law. Internationally, it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, Article 16), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, Article 16), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Articles 3 and 23), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, Article 10), all of which uphold equality in marriage, protect women’s dignity, and prohibit practices that perpetuate discrimination and inequality.
Consequences and the way forward
In the last fiscal year alone, 521 out of 1,198 women, who approached the National Women Commission, were victims of husbands’ extramarital affairs. Many married men involved in these affairs were found to be living in “live-in relationships” with other women—an arrangement unregulated by Nepal’s laws—leaving their wives vulnerable to violence and exploitation. Reports from the Office of the Attorney General reveal that in the first four years after the National Criminal (Penal) Code came into force, district courts registered an average of 850 polygamy cases each year. Nepal Police data show 653 polygamy cases in 2080–81 alone, with the actual number likely far higher due to underreporting driven by family honor, lack of awareness, fear and social stigma.
Given this alarming situation, the proposed amendment—if enacted—would create dangerous legal loopholes for polygamy, fueling a surge in gender-based violence, domestic abuse and sexual exploitation beyond anything Nepal has yet faced. The government cannot claim ignorance of these consequences. Therefore, to address this, the first step must be to scrap this proposed amendment without delay. The second is to strengthen the legal framework and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that no law in Nepal undermines the rights, dignity and safety of women. The third step is to foster a transparent environment where wider and meaningful consultation takes place before any law is discussed or passed.
The author is a researcher with an interest in the intersection of media and gender
