Under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment), marriages solemnized via symbolic acts like garlanding or Thali-tying and duly registered are valid; a subsequent collusive civil decree obtained from an incompetent court cannot override evidence of such marriage in a bigamy prosecution.

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records made in Crl.Appeal No.35 of 2021 dated 15.06.2022 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore @ Virudhachalam and confirmed the judgement in C.C.No.37 of 2017 dated 31.08.2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Thittagudi and set aside the same.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment dated 15.06.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.35 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, thereby confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.37 of 2017 dated 31.08.2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tittagudi, for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/first accused and the respondent got married on 10.02.2000 and, out of the wedlock, a female child was born. The respondent was working as a professor in the Department of Physics at Navalar Nedunchezhian College. In order to pursue a P.hd degree, the petitioner joined VIT University. During the subsistence of the first marriage, the petitioner contracted a second marriage with another lady at Vellore. However, the said lady died while delivering a baby. Thereafter, the petitioner avoided taking the respondent to vellore and neglected her. Hence, the respondent suspected the conduct of the petitioner and visited Vellore on 26.01.2017 and went to his house. The respondent was informed that he is living with one lady Doctor. Immediately, the respondent contacted the petitioner over cell phone and he informed her that he got married to the second accused and also registered the marriage before the Registering Authority. Immediately, the respondent went to the house of the petitioner and enquired about the same. However, the other accused persons also informed her that the petitioner got married to the second accused and that both of them were living together happily. Therefore, the respondent lodged a private complaint. The Trial Court had taken cognizance for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC as against five accused persons.

3. In order to bring home the charges, the respondent had examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs. P1 to P12. On the side of the second respondent, she had examined D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D4.

4. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent mainly relied upon the marriage registration certificate which was marked as Ex.P4. Except Ex.P4, no other document was marked by the respondent to prove the second marriage between the petitioner and the second accused. The Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and the same is a clear violation of the provision under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. Further, the respondent failed to prove the second marriage in accordance with the provision under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In fact, even according to the respondent, the petitioner