ORDER

1. In this present revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 6.5.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sidhi by which Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2022 preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence awarded in RCT No178/2013 decided on 30.8.2022 was dismissed.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was married to Nisha Tripathi (PW-1) in the year 2013 and in that year itself the petitioner subjected his wife to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry; on 24.12.2013, he physically assaulted and abused the complainant-wife and forcibly threw her out of the house; the complaint-wife sustained injuries in the incident and lodged the FIR. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and trial was conducted. On conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted under section 498-A and 323 of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. For the offence under section 323 of IPC he was sentenced for fine amount of Rs.500/- and for the other two offences under section 498-A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months each and fine amount of Rs.500/- each respectively.

3. Against this judgment the petitioner filed the Criminal Appeal 76/2022 which was dismissed and the conviction as well as sentence of petitioner were affirmed.

4. Being aggrieved thereby the present revision is filed. In this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order is improper and against the law because material available on record was not considered and evaluated. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate that no valid marriage was ever solemnized between the petitioner and the complainant, as the complainant was already married to Himanshu Dwivedi and that first marriage never came to an end because no divorce was sought by the either parties to that marriage. It is, therefore, prayed that in the light of judgment that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P. (2007) 15 SCC 369 conviction as well as sentence should be set-aside.

5. The present revision is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the State. She has strongly emphasized on the fact that the complainant-wife sustained injuries on account of harassment by the petitioner-husband, which shows cruelty to her. Hence, prayer was made to reject this revision.

6. In the light of the contention regarding validity of marriage, the evidence placed on record is examined. Complainant-Nisha Tripathi (PW-1) has admitted that prior to solemnization of marriage with the petitioner, she was married to Himanshu Dwivedi with whom she had a marital life of around 1 and half years and also had a son but due to marital dispute, she stopped residing with her first husband and after 2 years of the dissolution of first marriage she got married to the petitioner-Ramanuj Tripathi. It is claimed by her that for this second marriage the marital rites were held in Temple and she also had a notarized document regarding solemnization of this marriage. In the entire evidence, she could not disclose when and how her first marriage was officially dissolved.

7. Ramashray Upadhyay (PW-2) is the father of the compalinant. In para No.2 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that complainant had left her first husband and did not undertake any divorce proceedings. Similar is the statement of Savitri Upadhyay, (PW-3), the mother of the complainant.

8. The statements of these material witnesses are sufficient to reach to the conclusion that during the subsistence of a valid marriage with Himanshu Dwivedi, the complainant entered into a second marriage with the petitioner. The second marriage, though not as such declared null and void, has no validity in the eye of law.

9. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have relied upon the decision in Reema Agrawal v. Anupam, (2004)