The presumption of validity that arises when a marriage is proved to have taken place can only be rebutted by strong, satisfactory, and conclusive evidence.

( 1 ) A question of importance concerning the interpretation of section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Central Act XXV of 1955) read with section 494, Indian Penal Code, is involved in this reference which has been made by my learned brother, Basi Reddy, J. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner (first accused) against Criminal appeal No. 338 of 1959 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, who dismissed it. That appeal arose out of C. C. No. 66 of 1959 on the file of the Additional district Munsif-Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram. As against the first accused a private complaint was laid under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act XXV of 1955) alleging that this accused, a retired elementary school teacher, contracted a marriage with the second accused, who is the daughter of accused 3 and 4, even though he had at the date of the marriage with the second accused the complainant as his wife. The second accused is the second wife of the first accused ; and accused 3 and 4 who are the father and mother of the second accused, stood charged under section 494 read with sections 109 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional district Munsif-Magistrate found that the second marriage of the first accused with the second accused was solemnized at 2 A. M. on 1st September, 1958, in Seethanagaram in Rajahmundry taluk and believing the evidence of the third accused who deposed as P. W. 2 that A-2 and A-4 had no knowledge of the first marriage, acquitted them. The first accused was charged and convicted under section 494, Indian Penal code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 900 ; the third accused was also found guilty under section 494 read with section 114, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo three months rigorus imprisonment. On appeal by accused 1 and 3, the learned Sessions Judge held the view that the third accused gave his daughter in marriage under a mistaken impression that the previous marriage of the first accused with the complainant has been annulled and that, therefore, the third accused did not intentionally aid the commission of the offence. He, therefore, allowed Criminal Appeal No 332 of 1959 filed by the third accused, but confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused as he dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 1959.

( 2 ) A few more facts may be briefly stated. The complainant, Subbalakshmi, married Mutyala Paradesi (A-1) in 1947. She had three daughters by the first accused but only one of them is alive. They lived in Undrajavaram of Tanuku taluk in West Godavari district. In or about 1955 and 1956, there were differences between the complainant and her husband. Thereafter the first accused arranged with Bulusu Suryanarayana (A-3) to marry his daughter Saraswathi (A-2 ). The first accused at about 3 P. M. on 31st August, 1958, arrived at Seethanagaram where saraswathi and Suryanarayana lived, for having the marriage celebrated. Just about that time, Suryanarayana (A-3), father of Saraswathi, came to know that the first accused was having a wife alive, and therefore he and P. Ws. 2 and 3 questioned the first accused about it. It is in evidence that the first accused told them, that the complainant left his protection and that her marriage with him was annulledregarding this, the third accused examined as D. W. 2 has further stated that "he (A-1) would not have agreed to the present marriage if he had not the prior marital tie cancelled in view of the prevailing Hindu Law". Bulusu Suryanarayana also deposed that the marriage of the first accused with his daughter saraswathi, was celebrated at Seethanagaram and that the first accused is his son-in-law and the husband of the second accused. Subbalakshmi, the complainant, deposed as P. W. 1 that she came to know of this marriage only two months prior to the filing of this complaint and she sent a