A single-judge bench of Sanjay Kumar Singh observed that it is well settled that the word ‘solemnize’ means, in connection with a marriage, ‘to celebrate the marriage with
proper ceremonies and in the due form’.
“Unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it cannot be said to be ‘solemnized’. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, according to the law applicable to the parties, it is not a marriage in the eyes of the law. It is also well settled that to constitute an offense under Section 494 I.P.C., it is necessary that the second marriage should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form”, the court said.
Brief Facts of the Case
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order issued on complaint of her estranged husband who leveled allegation of Bigamy against her under Sections 494/109 I.P.C.
The relationship between the two rn sour and on account of acrimonious relation and matrimonial dispute, complaints under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, making allegations inter-alia of her harassment and torture by the accused persons (husband and her family) adopting different modus-operandi as well as demand of additional dowry. Her petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was decided ex-parte and her husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month.
Thereafter, the husband gave an application before the Higher Police Officials making the allegation of bigamy against the petitioner-wife. The said application was thoroughly investigated and the allegations were found to be false. Later, the bigamy complaint was filed before the Magistrate who issued the impugned summons.
Contention of Parties
The Counsel for petitioner submitted that the complainant is trying to falsely implicate her as a counter-blast to the case lodged by her. It was contended that the allegations leveled against the applicants are wholly false and that no act or evidence to prove the second marriage has been put on record.
Referring to the contents of the complaint and statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it was also argued that there is no whisper about the facts as to what rites, ceremonials, rituals, formalities, protocols, customary acts and procedure were performed in the alleged second marriage.
It was averred that the complaint and statements of the complainant as well as witnesses, there is lack of ‘solemnization’ of marriage and ceremony of ‘Saptapadi’ as per Section 7(2) of Hindu Marriage Act. There was no mention of the name of priest in the complaint who recited the rites of alleged second marriage, hence, no offence under Section 494 and109 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants.
He also questioned the authenticity of the photographic evidence produced before the Court. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent affirmed the allegations levelled by the complainant-husband and read out the law penalising bigamy under Section-494 IPC.
High Court’s Observation
The Court picked from the respondent’s submission and pointed out that the expression ‘whoever……marries’ mentioned in Section 494 of I.P.C. must mean ‘whoever…..marries validly’ or ‘whoever……marries and whose marriage is a valid one if the marriage is not a valid one, according to law applicable to the parties, no question of its being void by reason of its taking place during life of the husband or wife of the person marrying arises. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage in the eye of law.
The Court noted that during the initial stage when this case was filed, the complainant was granted three weeks’ time to file counter-affidavit which was not filed. It also took noted of the facts the witness is the son of the complainant and is also an accused in the FIR.
The Court laid out the law on ‘solemnization’ of marriage and found that bigamy charges are not made out as enough evidence of a second marriage being solemnized is lacking.
“So far as the alleged photograph is concerned, this Court is of the view that photograph is not sufficient to prove the factum of marriage, especially when the same are not proved on record in accordance with the Evidence Act. Where marriage is disputed, it is not enough to find that marriage took place leaving it to be presumed that rites and ceremonies necessary to constitute a legal marriage were performed. In absence of cogent evidence in this regard, it is difficult to hold that the ‘ Saptapadi ceremony’ of the marriage as contended by the complainant was performed so as to constitute a valid marriage between the parties concerned. As such on taking into consideration the contents of the complaint on it’s face value, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 494 read with section 109 of I.P.C. are lacking, hence, no offence is made out against the applicants”, the court observed.
The Court went on to cite the Supreme Court ruling in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & ANR Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors, 1988 Latest Caselaw 36 SC, State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1990 Latest Caselaw 365 SC, M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & ANR Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors, 1997 Latest Caselaw 725 SC,
Case Title: Satyam Singh vs. Smriti Singh
Case Details: Application U/S 482 No. – 23148 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh
Advocates for Petitioner: Shri Prakash Dwivedi,Saurabh Sachan
Advocates for Respondent: G.A.,Ajatshatru Pandey