Introduction

• The judgment given under this case was a historic one as it upheld the faith of many women in the judiciary whose spouse takes to second marriage without breaking ties with the first wife.

Facts

• The appellant husband got married to respondent wife on 6^th September 1970, and they had three children together.
• The respondent claimed to have experienced domestic violence and moved back to live with her parents.
• The respondent discovered that the appellant had entered into marriage with another woman named Kasturi in 1984, at a Marriage Hall.
• Subsequently, the respondent lodged a criminal complaint against the appellant and six others, leading to their acquittal by the trial court.
• Dissatisfied with the verdict, the respondent appealed to the High Court of Madras.
• The Single Judge, in a judgment upheld the acquittal of accused no. 2-7 but referred the matter of the appellant's acquittal back to the trial court.
• This allowed the respondent to present evidence regarding the manner in which the marriage had taken place.
• After recording the evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused.
• Aggrieved with the judgment from the trial court, the respondent filed a criminal appeal in the High Court of Madras where Single Judge held that the appellant had violated Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Hence, the appellant filed an appeal before Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether the second marriage entered by the appellant with the second accused, Kasturi constitute a valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA)?
• Whether “Saptapadi” is an essential ritual to be performed for the solemnisation of a marriage?
• Whether the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494 IPC are complies in the present case?

Observations

• The evidence in this case clearly shows that there was a valid marriage, as per the rules in Section 7-A of HMA.
• According to a witness, the groom brought the "Thirumangalam" and tied it around the bride's neck.
  • They exchanged garlands three times, and the bride's father declared that he was giving his daughter to the groom on behalf of "Agnidevi," with the groom's father accepting.
• It was also stated that the marriage followed the customs of the parties involved.
• According to Section 7 of HMA, a Hindu marriage can be conducted based on the customary rites and ceremonies of either party.
• The importance of the "Saptapadi" ceremony in a valid marriage depends on whether the parties consider it essential according to their marriage form.
  • In this case, the appellant did not claim that "Saptapadi" was crucial for a valid marriage under their personal law, while the provisions in Section 7-A were applicable.
• Therefore, there was a valid marriage between the appellant and the second accused, Kasturi.
• This proves that the appellant committed the offence of bigamy under IPC as it occurred during the existence of his earlier marriage.

Conclusion

• SC held that learned Single Judge was correct in stating that the appellant committed the offence of bigamy, and the case was rightly sent back to the trial court for an appropriate sentence.