Bench - D.P. Mohapatra, K.G. Balakrishnan
Facts -The appellant, S.Nagalingam married respondent Sivagami on 6th September 1970. Three children were born from that wedlock. The respondent alleged that the appellant and his mother started ill-treating her and on many occasions she was physically tortured. As a result of which she left her marital home and started staying with her parents. While so, the respondent came to know that the appellant had entered into a marriage with another woman Kasturi on 18th June 1984, and that the marriage was performed in a Marriage Hall at Thiruthani(Tamil Nadu). The respondent then filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate against the appellant and six otherswhere Nagalingam was acquitted, so now the respondent preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court of Madras.
Issue
Whether the second marriage entered into by appellant with the second accused Kasturi, was a valid marriage under Hindu Law so as to constitute an offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
Application
The essential ingredients of the offence under section 494 IPC are-
- the accused must have contracted the first marriage
- whilst the first marriage was subsisting, the accused must have contracted a second marriage; and
- both the marriages must be valid in the sense that necessary ceremonies governing the parties must have been performed.
In the instant case, the parties to the second marriage,Nagalingam, and his alleged second wife, Kasturi, are residents of the State of Tamil Nadu and their marriage was performed at Thiruthani Temple within the State of Tamil Nadu. In the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is a State Amendment by the State of Tamil Nadu, which has been inserted as Section 7a.The main thrust of this provision is that the presence of a priest is not necessary for the performance of a valid marriage. Parties can enter into a marriage in the presence of relatives or friends or other persons and each party to the marriage should declare in the language understood by the parties that each takes other to be his wife or, as the case may be, her husband, and the marriage would be completed by a simple ceremony requiring the parties to the marriage to garland each other or put a ring upon any finger of the other or tie a thali.Any of these ceremonies, would be sufficient to complete a valid marriage which in this case was tying a thali. Sub-section 2(a) of Section 7-A specifically says that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, all marriages to which this provision applies and solemnized after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage (Madras Amendment) Act, 1987 shall be good and valid in law.
Judgement
The evidence in this case clearly shows that there was a valid marriage in accordance with the provisions of Section 7a of the Hindu Marriage Act as it has been deposed that the marriage was performed in accordance with the customs applicable to the parties. Therefore, it was proved that the appellant had committed the offence of bigamy as he contracted his 2nd marriage while his 1st marriage was still subsisting. Reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras,the learned Single Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 494 1PC after satisfying all the provision of section 494.
