Whether the conviction of the Appellants for commission of an offence under S. 494 of Indian Penal Code, valid?

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Case law- Section 7- Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and Anr.vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

(Appeal allowed and conviction under Section 494 set aside as marriage not valid as per Section 7 of the Act)

Bench: Justice Raghubar Dayal, Justice J.R. Mudholkar, Justice V. Ramaswami

Facts:

• The Complainant in the present case is the first wife of Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande, herein the Appellant no.1 and had pressed charges against the Appellant for commission of an offence under Section 494, IPC as he solemnised a second marriage during the lifetime of the Complainant.
• The Appellant no. 1 was convicted by the Magistrate Court for an offence under Section 494 and Deorao Shankar Lokhande, herein the Appellant no. 2 for offence under Section 494 read with Section 114 IPC (abetment of offence committed).

Issues:

• Whether the second marriage solemnized by Appellant No. 1 was a valid marriage?
• Whether the conviction of the Appellants for commission of an offence under S. 494 of Indian Penal Code, valid?

Contentions of the Appellants:

• The onus is on the prosecution to establish that the alleged second marriage has been solemnised in accordance with religious rites applicable to the said form of marriage.
• Essential ceremonies were not performed during the second marriage for it to constitute a valid marriage.

Contentions of the State:

• The second marriage of the Appellant no. 1 was a valid marriage as the rites necessary for a 'Gandharva' form of marriage, as modified by custom prevailing in the community of the Appellants, had been duly observed by the Appellant no. 1 during the second marriage.
• It is not essential that to constitute an offence under Section 494, IPC, the second marriage has to be a valid marriage.

Background:

Aggrieved by the decision of the Magistrate Court of convicting the Appellants under Section 494, IPC, appeals were filed in the Trial Court and the High Court which were dismissed. Ultimately, the matter reached the Supreme Court which pronounced its judgment given below. 

Judgment:

The Apex Court held that if in accordance with the applicable law, a marriage between the parties is not valid then the question of it being void by reason of it taking place during the lifetime of a previous wife does not even arise.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage is considered void if the two conditions provided under Section 17 are fulfilled, namely:

1. the marriage is solemnized after the commencement of the Act and
2. at the date of such marriage, either party had a spouse living.

In the present case, the Court ruled that the prosecution has failed to establish that the second marriage of the Appellant no. 1 was performed in accordance with the customary rites as required by Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act and hence, the second marriage of the Appellant no. 1 cannot be said to be solemnised as per Section 17 of the Act. Thus, Section 494 will not be applicable even though the first wife of the Appellant no. 1 was living at the time of the marriage. The Court ultimately set aside the conviction of the Appellants.