Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10872
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
LATHA RAJENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
VELAYUDHAN PILLAI RAJENDRAN – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 285/2001
Documentary evidence of marriage registration can nullify claims of bigamy, leading to the dismissal of related petitions.
Headnote:
Marriage - Matrimonial Offences - IPC Sections 494, 109 - The court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order to reopen evidence in a case of alleged bigamy, interpreting the documentary evidence as conclusive against the petitioner's claims.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner, claiming to be the wife of the 1st respondent, alleged that he married the 2nd respondent while still married to her, with support from others. She sought to reopen evidence after the Magistrate dismissed her petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the request but concluded that the evidence provided by the revision petitioner did not support her claims due to documentary evidence contradicting her allegations.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate rightly dismissed the revision petition seeking to reopen evidence in a case of alleged bigamy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the documentary evidence showing registration of a marriage at the same time the petitioner claimed an illicit marriage undermined her case, leading to the dismissal of her revision petition.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed.
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.6/1995.
She claims to be the wife of the 1st respondent. Alleging that while the matrimonial tie between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent subsisting, the 1st respondent married the 2nd respondent for which respondents 3 to 8 had abetted, the revision petitioner preferred the above complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram accusing offences under Sections 494 and 109 IPC.
2. Evidence was recorded and the case was posted for hearing. While so, on 16.2.2001, the revision petitioner preferred C.M.P.No.1491/2001 seeking an order to reopen the evidence and examine the two witnesses produced by her. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order, dismissed the petition. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition is preferred.
3. I have heard Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.P.S. Appu, : 2:
the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2,6,7 and 8. Other respondents did not turn up. Perused the order impugned.
4. On a preliminary examination, it appears that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the request of the revision petitioner to reopen the evidence and examine the witnesses produced. But, carefully going through the impugned order, I find that the very case of the revision petitioner is that the alleged marriage took place between 10.20 a.m and 11 a.m on 17.8.1994 at Thiruvilamala in Thiruvananthapuram district. At the same time, even according to the revision petitioner, the marriage agreement was registered between respondents 1 and 2 before the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam. Copy of the document was produced. It would show that at 10.20 a.m respondents 1 and 2 were present before the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam and an agreement undertaking them to live as husband and wife was registered. The very production of that document would belie the petitioner's case that a valid marriage was solemnized between respondents 1 and 2 in between 10.20 a,.m and 11 a.m on the : 3:
same day at Thiruvananthapuram. Prosecution allegation is contrary to the documentary evidence. In the above circumstance, I find no merit in the revision petition. Examination of any more witness would not improve the case of the petitioner. The order impugned is not vitiated by any error, illegality or impropriety.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
: 4:
P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
.......................................... CRL.R.P.NO.285 OF 2001 .........................................
5th day of November, 2012
O R D E R
: 5:
