( 1 ) THE petitioner before this Court was the first accused in the trial court. The second accused before the trial Court was the second wife of the first accused and the complainant in the case was his first wife. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under S. 494 IPC. and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment by the trial Court. The trial court also convicted the second accused for an offence under S. 494 read with S. 109 IPC. In the appeal filed by the accused, the learned Sessions judge allowed the appeal of the second accused and acqutted her. So far as the appeal filed by the first accused is concerned, the learned Sessions judge confirmed his conviction and the sentence. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the correctness of the conviction and sentence passed on him by the learned Sessions Judge.

( 2 ) THE petitioner married the respondent-complainant at Jolarpet about nine years before the complaint. After living for some time with the complainant and after getting two children, the complainant's case is that the first accused started ill-treating her and drove her out of the house. Thereafter, during the life time of the complainant and while the marriage as between her and the first accused was subsisting, the first accused married the second accused at the premises of one Balaji Singh at Bangarapet on 11-5-1967. The complainant therefore charged the accused with having committed an offence of bigamy under S. 494 IPC.

( 3 ) SHRI M. V. Devaraju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the complainant has not established that the petitioner has undergone a valid second marriage according to Hindu rites. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the second marriage has not been duly solemnised according to Hindu rites and as such it is not a valid marriage. As laid down by the Supreme Court, two things are necessary for solemnization of a valid Hindu marriage :- (1) Invocation before the sacred fire, and (2) Saptapadi. Unless these two ceremonies are performed, the marriage will not be a valid marriage. It is contended by Shri Devaraju that the evidence of the ceremonies performed at the time of the marriage given by the various witnesses is discrepant and conflicting. There is no clear evidence that saptapadi was performed during the ceremony. Shri Devaraju has stroncly relied on the decisions in Bhaurao shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharaslra, AIR 1965 SC 1564, Kanwal Ram v. Himachal pradesh Administration, AIR 1966 SC 614, Venkata Subbarajudu Chetty v. Tanguturu venkataiah Shrersti, 1968 M. L. J. Cr. 73 and in Laxmavva v. Hanamapa Bhimappa, (1967) 1 Mys. L. J. 553 in support of his contentions that no valid marriage had been solemnized.

( 4 ) I will first consider what are the legal requirements of a valid hindu marriage. In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharastra (1), their Lordships have laid down what are the legal requirements of a valid hindu marriage. In paragraph 5 of the judgment their Lordships have observed as follows:"the word 'solemnize' means, in connection with a marriage, 'to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form', according to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. It follows, therefore, that unless the marriage is 'celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form' it cannot be said to be 'solemnized'. It is, therefore, essential for the purpose of S. 17 of the Act, that the marriage to which s. 494, IPC. applies on account of the provisions of the Act, should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married, will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established custom. "again in paragraph 8 their Lordships have laid down what are the two essential ceremonies which should be performed to make it a valid marriage. At paragraph 8 their Lordships have quoted the passag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document