A marriage under Hindu law is invalid unless essential ceremonies are performed; mere evidence of a priest is insufficient to establish validity.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. H.K. Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. K. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This application is filed under Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the judgment & order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Criminal Appeal No.3/2007 upholding the judgment & order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Goalpara in G.R. Case No. 1047/2004, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as “IPC”) and sentenced for 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo 6(six) months of Simple Imprisonment.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, alleging inter-alia that the petitioner/accused married one Smt. Arati Nath during the subsistence of her marriage with the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the complaint was sent to the In-charge of jurisdictional Police Station for enquiry. Thereafter, the jurisdictional police station after enquiry registered a case No. G.R. 1047/2004 and after investigation filed Charge-sheet under Section 498-A/494/496/419 of IPC. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charge under Section 498-A/494 of IPC against the petitioner/accused and conducted the trial. After the conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused under Section 494 of IPC and sentenced him thereof.

4. Situated thus, an appeal was filed before the Court of Sessions, Goalpara, wherein the appellate Court by judgment & order dated 11.01.2011 was pleased to dismiss the appeal by upholding the judgment and conviction of the trial Court. Against the aforesaid judgment & order of the appellate Court, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.

5. Mr. H. K. Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the learned appellate Court as well as the trial Court is totally perverse inasmuch as there is no evidence of the alleged second marriage to have been performed by following the requisite essential ceremonies. He submits that in order for a marriage to be valid under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”) the requisite essential ceremonies have to be followed. He accordingly, submits that the finding of the appellate Court as well as the trial Court that there was a valid second marriage is patently and manifestly erroneous and therefore, the judgment of the appellate Court is liable to be interfered with. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the following decisions:

(i) Dolly Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 587

(ii) S. Nitheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 706

(iii) Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1564.

(iv) Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh Vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, reported in (1971) 1 SCC 864

(v) Gopal Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 170.

6. Per contra, Mr. K. Sarma, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant submits that it has clearly come out from the evidence of the Priest (PW-6) that he has conducted the second marriage of the petitioner/accused with one Arati Nath as per the Vedic rites. He further submits that PW-6 has further exhibited the Marriage Certificate in support of the second marriage. He accordingly, submits that there being evidence as regards the second marriage based on which both the appellate Court as well as the trial Court has held the petitioner guilty under Section 494 of IPC ought not be interfered by this Court under revisional jurisdiction.

7. Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits that the evidence of the Priest (PW-6) is corroborated by the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-7 & DW-3, and th