SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(AP) 199

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SHARFUDDIN AHMED
Bonigala Bodemma - Appellant
Versus
Bonigala Veeraiah - Respondent
Decided On : 11-15-61

Section 494, IPC, prohibits bigamy, regardless of the form or validity of the second marriage.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - BIGAMY - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 17 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 494 - MARRIAGE BETWEEN HINDU AND CHRISTIAN - VALIDITY - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 494, IPC - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

A Hindu man, A-1, was accused of bigamy for marrying a Christian woman, A-2, while his first marriage with the complainant, Bonigala Bodemma, was still subsisting. The Magistrate acquitted A-1 and the other accused, holding that the alleged second marriage was not recognized by Hindu law and therefore did not constitute bigamy.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Magistrate erred in law by dismissing the complaint without considering the merits of the case. The Court interpreted Section 494, IPC, to mean that a person who marries a second time during the lifetime of their first spouse is punishable under the section, regardless of whether the second marriage is recognized by their personal law.

Issues: Whether the second marriage between A-1 and A-2 constituted a bigamous marriage attracting the provisions of Section 494, IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the word "marries" in Section 494, IPC, contemplates the taking of a second spouse in the lifetime of the first spouse, regardless of the form or validity of the second marriage. The Court reasoned that the intention of the legislation was to prohibit polygamy and that a Hindu husband or wife should not be able to escape liability under Section 494 by marrying a second spouse professing a different religion.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal, and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case on merits.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises an interesting question of law whether the second marriage of a Hindu with a Christian would bring him within the purview of section 494, Indian Penal Code. The facts out of which this appeal arose are as under.

( 2 ) A complaint was preferred by one Bonigala Bodemma, claiming to be the wife of A-1, against the respondents-accused, under section 494 read with section 109, indian Penal Code, with the allegation that on 6th June, 1958 at about 9-30 P. M. , a-i had entered into a second marriage with A-2, the daughter of A-3, in the house of A-6 with the assistance of the other accused in the case, in Mariava village. This happened while the marriage of the complainant with A-1 was subsisting and, therefore, the respondents were liable to punishment under section 494, Indian Penal Code. The respondents pleaded not guilty . A-1 stated that he had not married the second accused, and that the case has been foisted on him on account of the factions in the village. The learned Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Bapatla, before whom the complaint was lodged, on examination of five witnesses on behalf of the complainant and fouron the side of defence, came to the conclusion that the form of marriage that was gone through is not recognised by Hindu Law and, therefore, there was no second marriage. In that view, he dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused of the charge under section 494, Indian Penal Code. Hence the appeal.

( 3 ) IT may be stated at the outset that the learned Magistrate has not given a finding on the merits of the case. He has based his conclusion on the question of law involved in the case and dismissed the complaint, as in his view there could not be a valid marriage between a Hindu and a Christian. The question which he has considered is whether the alleged second marriage between A-1 and A-2 constituted a bigamous marriage so as to attract the provisions of section 494, Indian Penal Code, and referring to the evidence of the witnesses,so far as relevant to the purpose, he has come to the conclusion that as A-2 was stated to be a Christian there could not be a valid marriage between her and A-1 who professed Hindu religion. There is no discussion in the judgment as to the form of marriage apart from a reference to the religion of the contracting parties. Even in regard to the religion of A-2 he has found her to be a Christian as some of the witnesses examined by the complainant have stated that her parents were Christians. Actually there is no evidence to show what was the religion she was following at the time of the alleged marriage. In the absence of it, the form of marriage, i. e. , the ceremonies at the celebration would have had material bearings, but unfortunately as there is no finding on that point we have to proceed on the footing that A-2 was following the religion of her parents at the time of the alleged marriage. The question is whether a marriage so celebrated would bring the accused within the ambit of section 494, Indian Penal Code, It lays down that,"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 of such husband or wife, (shall be punished with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. "

( 4 ) THE gist of the offence is marrying during the lifetime of husband or wife. The contention is that the second marriage should be a valid marriage and if the alleged marriage was not solemnised in accordance with the prescribed form or if the contracting parties were suffering from some other disability the marriage could not attract the provisions of section 494, Indian Penal Code. A reference is made to the provisions of section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which lays down that,"any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top