LexLLNGARI OBULAMMA versus L. VENKATA REDDY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
LlNGARI OBULAMMA
v •
L. VENKATA REDDY & ORS .
.Tan1tary 19, 1979
.[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSllAL, JJ.J
1(119
Penal l'ode-S. 494-Scope of-Essential co11ditio11s to be Sl1tiJfied for
application of the section.
1 he appellant waK the husbaJ!d of respondent No. 1. Relations between the
husband and wife ht;wing been strained for some years they lived separately.
On the husband's complaint that his wife had married another person during
the subsistence of their n1arriage, she and accused no. 4 were convicted under
s. 494 !PC.
Allowing the wife's revision petition the High Court held the marriage to
¥
be void on lhe ground that there was no evidence to prove that the essential
ceremonies required to be performed in a Hindu marriage, namely Dutta Homa
and Saptapa<li had been performed.
In apptal to this Court the husband contended that under
the
custom
followed by the community to which the parties belonged Saptapadi was not
an essential requiren1ent to constitute a valid rr11..1rrriage but that tying a yarn
thread round th~ bride's neck at the time of marrir~ge wi.;s sufficient to make
a va1id n1arriage Und this having been done, the second marriage was va1id
and the wife \Vas guilty of the offence under s. 494 lPC.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD : The prosecution failed to prove that the second n1arriage was a
valid marriage and, therefore, the High Court was justified in tacquitting the
respondents. [1022 F]
Before a conviction can be recorded under s. 494 IPC the following ingre~
clients must be satisfied :-
(1) that the cornplainant had been married to the accused;
(2) that the accused contracted a socond
marri~.ge
while
the
first
marriage was still subsisting; and
(3) that both the marriages were va1id and strictly according to law
governing the parties. [1022 BJ
In the instant case th'ere wa& no evidence to show that
there
was
any
custom among the parties out weighing the .written text of Jaw.
Secondly, the
husband had not clearly mentioned that the parties were governed by custom
m ~erogation of Hindu Law. The priest who performed the
marriage
b~d
shO\vn co1nplete ignorance as tO whether or not the parties were governed by
custom. The witness was, therefore, incompetent to depcse about the exist·
cnce of any custom in the family of the parties.
When the priest said that
there .was no custom of .sacred fire and Saptapadi what he meant MlS that in
the ~econd inarriage these two coremonies had not he.en performed. [102·2 C·D &:
IQ21 0-HJ
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•I0.20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C. R.
·A
£11 rr: (Jo/go111i Ragliava Reddy & Anr., AIR 1968 (AP) 117 held inappli-
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
cable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUR!Sl)JCT!ON : Criminal Appeal No. 339
of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
19-3-1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision
Case No. 16/74 (Criminal Revision Petition No. 12/74).
P. Parmeshwara Rao, T. V. S. N. Chari and R. Nagarathn11111 for
the Appellant.
·
A. V. V. Nair for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J.
This appeal by special leave has been filed by lhe
complainant against the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
acquitting the respondents, who had been convicted by
the trial
court Magistrate and the Sessions Judge under Section 494 I. P. C.
{!nd sentenced to six months· rigorous imprisonment and a fine
of
Rs. 100/- as modified by the Sessions Judge.
The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent No. 1
on the ground that he was her husband and while the first marriage
was subsisting he had contracted a second marriage and was, there-
fore, guilty of the offence of bigamy as enshrined in Section 494 of
.I. P. C.
According to the prosecution the first marriage of respon-
dent No. 1 with appellant took place on 22-4-68.
After
about 3
years of the first marriage the relations between the husband and
wife became strained and they separated, but there was no divorce.
On 1-4-1972 the respondent No. 1 married accused No. 4 and the
other accused who were relations of the respondent participated in
the marriage.
On knowing this fact the appellant filed a complaint
on 26-4-1972 on the basis of which the respondents were prosecuted
and ultimately convicted under Section 494 of J. P. C.
The case
went up in revision to the High Court which accepted the revision
and acquitted the accused on the grounExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.