The customary form of marriage followed by the Buddhist community is recognized in law, provided that it is certain, reasonable, and not opposed to public policy, and has been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 494 READ WITH SECTION 109 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CUSTOMARY FORM OF MARRIAGE - RECOGNITION IN LAW - BUDDHIST COMMUNITY - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 7(1) AND 7(2) - VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE - PROOF OF CUSTOMARY CEREMONIES - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 494 IPC - CUSTOMARY RITES AND CEREMONIES - TEST OF VALIDITY - RECOGNITION BY COURTS - SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF NON-RECOGNITION - RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAHARASHTRA STATE LAW COMMISSION'S NINTH REPORT - AMENDMENT OF SECTION 7 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SENTENCE FOR BIGAMY.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant, the first wife, challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramati acquitting both the respondents for having committed offences punishable under section 494 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 834 of 1976. The appeal raised a question of considerable importance affecting a large section of the Indian society, that is, members of the Schedule Castes who have chosen to convert themselves into the Buddhist faith and involves a question of recognition in law or the customary form of marriage different from the form of marriage generally recognised under the Hindu Law.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the complainant had successfully proved the solemnization of the second marriage between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, according to the customary form of marriage prevalent in the Buddhist community to which they belonged. The Court further held that the accused No. 1 had committed the offence of bigamy punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Court also convicted accused No. 2 for having abetted accused No. 1 in committing the offence punishable under section 494 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigours imprisonment for three months.
Issues: 1. Whether the customary form of marriage followed by the Buddhist community is recognized in law? 2. Whether the marriage between the complainant and accused No. 1 was valid according to the customary rites and ceremonies of the Buddhist community? 3. Whether accused No. 1 committed the offence of bigamy punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code? 4. Whether accused No. 2 abetted accused No. 1 in committing the offence of bigamy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The customary form of marriage followed by the Buddhist community is recognized in law, provided that it is certain, reasonable, and not opposed to public policy, and has been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time. 2. The marriage between the complainant and accused No. 1 was valid according to the customary rites and ceremonies of the Buddhist community, as proved by the evidence on record. 3. Accused No. 1 committed the offence of bigamy punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, as he contracted a second marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting. 4. Accused No. 2 abetted accused No. 1 in committing the offence of bigamy, as she knew that the first marriage of accused No. 1 was subsisting at the time of the second marriage.
Final Decision: The appeal of the complainant was allowed. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused No. 2 was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigours imprisonment for three months.

Judgment

R.S. BHONSALE, J.:---This is an appeal filed by the original complainant, the first wife, challenging the order of acquittal dated May 28, 1979 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramati acquitting both the respondents for having committed offences punishable under section 494 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 834 of 1976.

2. The appeal raises a question of considerable importance affecting a large section of the Indian society, that is, members of the Schedule Castes who have chosen to convert themselves into the Buddhist faith and involves a question of recognition in law or the customary form of marriage different from the form of marriage generally recognised under the Hindu Law.

3. Since this appeal involves recognition of a different form of marriage widely followed and recognised amongst the members of the Buddhist community (converted from Schedule Castes), it is necessary to refer to the averments in the complaint of the complainant as to what form of marriage is followed in their community to which parties admittedly belong to. The complainant in her complaint, Exh. 1, filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramati, on July 22, 1976, states as follows :---

"The complainant and the accused are of Buddhist religion. Amongst their community belonging to Buddhist religion, the form of marriage is as follows :---

The bride and the bridegroom after taking their bath and after wearing new clothes are brought to the marriage hall. In the marriage hall the photographs of Lord Buddha and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar are placed on a chair and those photographs are worshipped and garlanded by them. Thereafter, both the bride and bridegroom stand with folded hands before these two photographs and after respectfully bowing to these photographs recite the following :---

^^cq)e~ kj.ke~ xPN~keh] /keae kj.ke~ xPN~keh] laxe kj.ke~ xPNkeh**

Thereafter, sacred ceremonial mantras, i.e. ^^eaxykfLVd** are recited.

The bride and bridegroom garland each other and take oath to the effect that as wife and husband they will henceforth conduct towards each other happily; that they shall conduct their family relations with happiness. After this oath is taken, the people who are present in the marriage hall shower flowers on the bride and bridegroom and thereafter the betel leaves and betel nuts are distributed amongst the guests and the band is played."

4. In para 2 of the complaint, complainant has stated that, according to this custom and rites of their caste and religion, she was married with accused No. 1, at Baramati on August 18, 1971. All the rites and ceremonies were performed at the time of her marriage with accused No. 1 and thereafter the complainant went to the residence of her husband at Kambleshwar and continued to stay there as his legally wedded wife. Accused No. 1 treated the complainant in a normal way for a few months. However, after 3 or 4 months accused No. 1 started harassing, torturing and beating the complainant. He used to leave the complainant at her parents house for no reason and even began to suspect her fidelity. Accused No. 1 gave notice dated June 14, 1973 through one Advocate Shri R.K. Patil. This notice was false and mischievous inasmuch as it was stated in the notice that as per custom a divorce had taken place between the complainant and accused No. 1. In fact, there was no such customary divorce recognised in the community nor such divorce has at all taken place between the complainant and accused No. 1. By reply dated July 20, 1973 through her advocate Shri A.R. Pise, the complainant refused the allegations in the notice under reply. As a result of this notice, accused No. 1 managed to persuade the complainant and again took her to his house. However, after a couple of months accused No. 1 sent the complainant to her parents house again and gave a public notice through his Advocate Shri A.S. Lalgunkar in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1981 Supreme(Bom) 27

The customary form of marriage followed by the Buddhist community is recognized in law, provided that it is certain, reasonable, and not opposed to public policy, and has been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time.

Login now and unlock premium legal research