The Allahabad High Court, in a petition filed seeking quashing of proceedings in a case under Section 494 IPC (Bigamy), observed that it is necessary that the second marriage should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form and the ‘Saptapadi' ceremony under the Hindu Law is one of the essential ingredients to constitute a valid marriage but the said evidence is lacking in the present case.
Brief Facts:
The opposite party filed a complaint case against the present revisionist¸ alleging that she had earlier solemnized marriage with another person, and thereafter, without obtaining any decree of divorce from any court of law, she solemnised marriage with him in Arya Samaj Mandir according to Hindu rites and rituals. The husband further claimed that when he learned about his wife's previous marriage, he asked the revisionist about it. Then, she threatened him for implicating him in false cases and demanded ten lakh rupees. After recording statements of the complainant-husband and witnesses under Sections 200 & 202 CrPC in the complaint, the Court summoned the revisionist-wife for the offence under Sections 494, 504, and 506 IPC. The present petition was then filed against this summoning order.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist contended that the allegations levelled against the revisionist are wholly false and based on concocted facts and further, there is no whisper about the facts as to what rites, ceremonials, rituals, formalities, protocols, customary acts and procedure were performed in the alleged second marriage of revisionist with the opposite party No. 2. Further it was contended that in the complaint and statements of the complainant as well as witnesses, there is lack of 'solemnisation' of marriage and ceremony of 'Saptapadi' as per Section 7(2) of Hindu Marriage Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that there is an allegation against the revisionist for bigamy, therefore, after recording statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. the court concerned has rightly summoned the revisionist, thus, there is no error in the order impugned and the same needs no interference.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that the expression 'whoever......marries' mentioned in Section 494 of I.P.C. must mean 'whoever.....marries validly' or 'whoever......marries and whose marriage is a valid one if the marriage is not a valid one, according to the law applicable to the parties, no question of its being void by reason of its taking place during the life of the husband or wife of the person marrying arises. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage in the eye of the law.
Further, the court stated that so far as the second marriage of revisionist is concerned, it is well settled that the word 'solemnize' means, in connection with a marriage, 'to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form'. Unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it cannot be said to be 'solemnized'. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, according to the law applicable to the parties, it is not a marriage in the eyes of the law and further to constitute an offence under Section 494 I.P.C., it is necessary that the second marriage should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form and the Saptapadi' ceremony under the Hindu Law is one of the essential ingredients to constitute a valid marriage but the said evidence is lacking in the present case.
The court noted that in the absence of cogent evidence in this regard, it is difficult to hold that the 'Saptapadi ceremony' of the marriage as contended by the complainant was performed so as to constitute a valid marriage between the parties concerned and as such on taking into consideration the contents of the complaint on its face value, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. are lacking, hence, no offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist.
The decision of the Court:
The Court partly allowed the petition and quashed the impugned summoning order and further proceedings in the complaint so far as it related to the provisions under Section 494 IPC.
Case Title: Nisha vs State of U.P. and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Chowdhary
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 470 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Diwakar Mishra, Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, Mohd Afroz Khan
Advocate for the Respondent: Baleshwar Dayal, G.A., Mayank Prakash Rawat
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
