M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE question of law that arises for consideration in this application under section 482, Crl. P C is : Does a Hindu spouse commit an offence of bigamy under Sec. 494, I P C by cortracting a marriage within the period limited in section 15 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 1955 for filing an appeal to the High court?

( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner husband married the 1st respondent in 1956. He filed 0 PNo. 61 of 1982 on the file of subordinate Judge s Court, Markapur for dissolution of the marriage alleging that the 1st respondent was guilty of adultery. That Court passed a decree of dissolution on 12-3-1984. It is the case of the complainant (the 1st respondent) in the court below at Tenali, the place where she is now living, that the 1st petitioner married the 2nd petitioner on 6-4-84, abetted by the other petitioners, and an offence under Section 494,i P C is made out inasmuch as the period of limitation provided for an appeal did not expire by the date of re-marriage.

( 3 ) SRI M. Ramaiah the petitioner s counsel contends that even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, no offence is made out under Sec. 494, I P C inasmuch as, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lila gupta vs. Laxmi Narain (1) A I R1978 s C 1351 the moment the decree ispassed for dissolution, the marital tie is seveted, and a remarriage, within the period of limitation for appeal, even if true, does not amount to any offence. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Kailash singh vs. Priti (2) 1982 Crl. L J 1005 (Rajasthan) is also relied upon.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned addl. Public Presecutor Sri Y. Bhaskar Rao and the counsel for the 1st respondent sri I. Sreerama Murthy, rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra mohini vs. Avinash Prasad (3) A I R 1967 s C 581 and contend that an offence of bigamy is made out.

( 5 ) BEFORE going into the main question, I reject the petitioners objection to the jurisdiction of the Tenali Court to entertain the complaint. The provisions of Section 182 (2) Cr. P C now permit the wife to file a petition at the place where she is living.

( 6 ) ON the main question raised under Section 494, I P C I shall assume the facts in the complaint to be true. In case I hold on the legal question against the petitioners, the Court below will have to decide the case on facts and I express no opinion on facts.

( 7 ) THE penal law of this country provides in Sec. 494, I P C that it is an offence to many again during the life- time of the husband or wife. It reads :"s. 494 : Whoever, having a husband or wife living marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life-time of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which mey extend to seven years, end shall also be liable to fine. "it is also necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, 1955. Before its amendment in 1976, sec. 15 thereof contained a proviso prohibiting remarriage for a period of one year after the dissolution of the marriage passed by the trial court. But the proviso was dropped in 1976 retaining only the main part of S. 15 which states that remarriage is lawful only after expiry of the limitation and in case an appeal is filed, only after dismissal of the appeal. The unamended provision of Sec 15 read as follows :"s. 15. When a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either, there is no right of appeal against the decree, or if there is such a right of appeal, the time for filing has expired without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again. Provided that it shall not be lawful for the respective spouses to marry again unless at the date of such marriage atleast one year has elapsed from the date of the decree in the court of first instance. "the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document