G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE wife filed a private complaint against her husband, his second wife and their relations alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Section 494 and Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC against A-l to A-15.

( 2 ) A-3 and A-4 are parents of A-l. A-5 is the sister of A-l and A-14 and A-15 are the parents of A-2, who is the second wife of A-1. The other accused are close telatives and associates.

( 3 ) THE case set up by the complainant is that she married A1 on 23-4-1975 as per Hindu rites and customs and their marriage was consummated and two sons were born to them during their wedlock.

( 4 ) A-L deserted the complainant and her two sons and filed a petition for divorce under the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 (OP No. 21/81) on the file of the sub-Court, Narsapur, mainly attributing adultery. The complainant and her two sons filed a petition for maintenance, being MC No. 33/82, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate s Court, and the same was allowed and maintenance was granted to the wife and children. A1 married A2 on 12-8-83 at Chinchinada village at the instigation of the other accused.

( 5 ) IN support of her case, PW1, the brother of the complainant is examined. PWs 2 and 3 are direct witnesses for the second marriage. PW4 is the wife of A1 PW 5 is the person who informed about the second marriage to PW1. On behalf of the accused one witness was examined. The Magistrate found that the evidence of PWs 1 to 15 with regard to the marriage proper between A1 and A2 contradictory. By taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court rendered by Ramanujulu Naidu J. , found that the marriages have not been duly proved for want of observance of the required ceremonies and dississed the petition. It is agaignst that the present appeal has been filed.

( 6 ) THE main contention of the complainant-petitioner is that the finding of the lower Court that the marriage between Al and PW4, the complainant, has not been proved is not correct and it is not based on the correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances that have been brought out in the case. In respect of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the proceedings that took place between Al and PW4, i. e. , the proceedings under the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 and the proceedings under S. 125 cr. P. C. In K. Ramachandra Rao vs. K. Sita Devil Ramanujulu Naidu, J. , observed as follows :"the admission of the marriage with the complainant by A1 is no evidence of proof of the marriage in a case of bigamy. In this view it is unnecessary to adjudicate upon either the factum or the validity of the alleged marriage between A1 and A2 as even assuming that A1 had validly married A2 it cannot be said that the marriage took place during the subsistence of a valid marriage between Al and the complainant. With great respect, the view that has been taken by Sri Ramanujulu naidu, J. , is not correct. On a prior occasion when the matter came up before the High Court about the sufficiency of the proof of the first marriage, adv Reddy, J. , in M. B. Krishna Rama Raju vs. V. Tirupatammal crl. L. J. 208 observed as follows: "hindu marriages are not registered. Evedfince with regard to the marriages that has necessarily to be let in is mainly oral, except for the production of invitation card if available and preserved. It will be unfortunate if for want of certain details with regard to the ceremonies performed, these marriages are to be held to be invalid and not legal with its damaging consequences, especially when all the parties are agreed that a valid marriage had been performed. I, therefore, on the above considerations find that the marriage between the petitioner and A-1 is a valid marriage". The words used in Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code "whoever marries"and marriage relate to second marriage. The words used in that section "husband and wife" relate to the first marriage. The first

Click Here to Read the rest of this document