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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 410

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Rajammal
Versus
Gopalakrishnan
Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2000
Decided On : 01-02-2007

Advocates:
For the Appellant:J.R.K. Bhavanandam, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel for C.D. Johnson, Advocate.

High Court shall not interfere with the judgment of the lower Court unless it is perverse or against principles of law.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 494 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 198(1)(c) - Bigamy -- Second wife cannot file a complaint against husband.

Judgment :-

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in C.A.No.90 of 1995 on the file of Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chenglepet.

2. The complainant who has preferred C.C.No.277 of 1989 under Sections 494 and 496 IPC is the appellant herein. The complainant is the first wife of the accused. The learned trial Judge after taking the complaint on file, issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused. The charges punishable under Sections 494 and 496 IPC were framed against the accused and when questioned the accused, pleaded not guilty.

3. On the side of the complainant P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs P1 to P3 were marked. P.W.1 is the complainant who would depose that a marriage between her and the accused took place on 24. 1964 and that they have been blessed with two female children and one male child in the wed-lock. During 1980, the accused had driven her (P.W.1)out from the matrimonial home and hence she went to her mothers house and that the accused had eloped with her sister Rajalakshmi who was studying in the college at that time. The accused had taken his sister in law Rajalakshmi to Varkala and married her and the marriage was a registered one. The said factum of second marriage was informed by the accused through telephone on 30.3.1981 to the brother of P.W1. The evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, the mother of P.W.1. P.W.2 is an Upper Division Clerk at Sub Registrars Office, Varkala. He has produced book No.41 Volume 70 of 1981 maintained in the Sub Registrars Office, Varkala which will go to show that an agreement of marriage has been entered into on 30.3.1981 between the accused Gopalakrishnan and Rajalakshmi, the sister of the complainant to the effect that both of them are living together as husband and wife. The said agreement has been registered in the said Sub Registrars Office, Varkala.

4. The trial Court has come to a conclusion that the second marriage between Rajalakshmi and the accused has not been proved and consequently, dismissed the complaint for an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC and has taken the complaint on file for an offence punishable under Section 496 IPC. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused pleaded innocence.

5. After going through the available evidence, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused under Section 496 IPC. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.90 of 1995 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengleput, who after careful consideration of the material records has come to a conclusion that the complainant, viz., the first wife of the accused is not competent in law to prefer the complaint for an offence punishable under Section 496 IPC against the accused who is her husband, holding that the complainant is not aggrieved person to prefer a complaint against the accused under Section 496 IPC and ultimately held that the Judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.277 of 1989 is not sustainable and accordingly allowed the appeal and setting aside the Judgment in C.C.No.277 of 1989 on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. Aggrieved by the said findings of the first appellate Court, the complainant has preferred this appeal. There is no appeal preferred against the findings of the learned trial Judge in respect of the dismissal of the complaint against the offence under Section 494 IPC.

6. Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the judgment in C.A.No.90 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chengleput is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?.

7. The Point:

The only point to be decided in this appeal is whether the complainant is competent to prefer a complaint under Section 496 IPC. Section 496 IPC runs as follows:

"Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone throug






































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