Where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting, the spouse would be guilty of the offence of bigamy under the penal law in India, if it is proved that the first as well as the second marriages were legally valid, i.e., all the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been performed at the time of contracting the marriages. According to the penal law in India, if a person, who has a living husband or wife, marries again, then such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment up to seven years along with a fine for committing the offence of bigamy. Although the penal law of India is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliations, an exception to the offence of bigamy may be created by the law relating to marriage applicable to followers of a particular religion. Under the Hindu law relating to marriage, bigamy is not permitted. If a Hindu wife files a criminal complaint against her husband on the ground that during the subsistence of her marriage, her husband had married a second wife by converting into another religion which legally permits having more than one wife, then her husband is liable to be punished for the offence of bigamy. Further, the Hindu law relating to marriage also provides that the punishment for offence of bigamy as provided in the penal law of India would be applicable to marriage between two Hindus.

Which of the following statements is incorrect?

The correct option (i.e., the incorrect statement) is: marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife is a pre-condition for performing a valid Hindu marriage.

Step-by-step Explanation:

1. Analyze Option 1: "marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife is a pre-condition for performing a valid Hindu marriage."
According to the given text, bigamy (marrying again while a spouse is alive) is strictly not permitted under Hindu law. Therefore, marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse is definitely not a pre-condition for performing a valid Hindu marriage; in fact, monogamy is required. Thus, this statement is false/incorrect, making it the correct answer to the question asking for the incorrect statement.

2. Analyze Option 2: "religious conversion is not a defence for the offence of bigamy under the penal law of india."
The passage explicitly states that if a Hindu husband converts to another religion which permits having more than one wife and marries a second time during the subsistence of the first marriage, he is still liable to be punished for bigamy. Hence, conversion is not a valid defence, making this statement correct.

3. Analyze Option 3: "bigamy is an offence under the penal law of india."
The passage clearly states that according to the penal law in India, marrying again while having a living husband or wife is an offence punishable with imprisonment and fine. Hence, this statement is correct.

4. Analyze Option 4: "Offence of bigamy can be committed according to the provisions of Hindu law relating to marriage."
The text mentions that under Hindu law, bigamy is not permitted, and the law provides that punishment for the offence of bigamy as per penal law applies to marriages between two Hindus. Hence, this statement is correct in context.

Therefore, the only statement that is false and incorrect is the first option.