LexS. NAGALINGAM versus SIVAGAMI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A S. NAGALINGAM v. SIVAGAMI AUGUST 31, 2001 B [ D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : S.494-Bigamy-!ngredients explained-Husband contracting a second C marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage-Held, in the/acts of the case, the husband committed offence of bigamy. Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 : S. 7 and S. 7-A (as inserted by Tamil Nadu Amendment)-Marriage- D 'Saptapadi'-Special provision regarding suyamariyathai and seerthiruththa marriage in State a/Tamil Nadu-During subsistence of firs/ marriage second marriage performed by husband in the presence of relatives and friends- Complainan/ u/s. 494 !PC by the first wife-Magistrate acquitting the husband holding that second marriage was not a valid marriage as Saptapadi was not E peiformed-Held, any of the ceremonies enumerated ins. 7-A would be sufficient to complete a valid marriage--Since the parties were residents of Tamil Nadu and marriage peiformed in the said State in accordance with provisions of s.7-A, second marriage was a valid marriage and h11Sband committed the offence of bigamy. F Respondent No.I filed a complaint under section 494 IPC against her husband (appellant-accused no.I) and 6 others alleging that during the subsistence of their marriage the appellant entered into a marriage with another woman, namely, accused no. 2, on 18.6.1984. The parties, namely the complainant-respondent no. I, appellant-accused no. I and accused no.2, all G were residents of State of Tamil Nadu. The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that since "Saptapadi" had not been performed, the second marriage was not a valid marriage and no offence was committed by the accused. On appeal, the High Court convicted the husband accused. no. I, under section 494 IPC but acquitted the other accused. Aggrieved, the husband filed the present appeal. H 454 S. NAGALINGAM v. SJVAGAMI 455 Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. There was a valid marriage on 18.6.1984 between the appellant (accused no. 1) and accused no. 2. Therefore, it was proved that the appellant had committed the offence of bigamy as it was done during the subsistence of his earlier marriage held on 6.9.1970. [462-C-D] 2.1. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494 IPC are: (i) the accused must have contracted the first marriage; (ii) whilst the first marriage was subsisting, the accused must have contracted a second marriage; and (iii) both the marriages must be valid in the sense that necessary ceremonies governing the parties must have been performed. [457-F] 2.2. In view ofs.7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, "Saptapadi" would A B c be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in cases where it was admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them that was an essential ceremony. By an amendment made by the State of Tamil Nadu, Section 7-A has been inserted in the Act and it applies to any marriage D between two Hindus solemnized in the presence of relatives, friends or other persons. The main thrust of this provision is that the presence of a priest is not necessary for the performance of a valid marriage. Parties can enter into a marriage in the presence of relatives or friends or other persons and each party to the marriage should declare in the language understood by the parties that each takes other to be his wife or, as the case may be, her husband and E the marriage would be completed by a simple ceremony requiring the parties to the marriage to garland each other or put a ring upon any finger of the other or tie a thali. Any of these ceremonies would be sufficient to complete a valid marriage. (462-B; 461-A-B-CI Kanwal Ram and Ors. v. H.P. Administration, AIR (1966) SC 614, relied F on. Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, (1971) l SCC 864; lingari Obulamma v. L. Venkata Reddy and Ors., [1979] 3 SCC 80; Santi Deb Benna v. Kanchan Prava Devi, (1991 I Supp. 2 SCC 616 and laxmi Devi v. Satya Narayan and Ors., [1994) 5 sec 545, referred to. G 2.3. In the instant case, the parties to the second marriage, namely, the appellant and his alleged second wife, are residents of the State of Tamil Nadu and their marriage was performed at Thiruthani Temple within the State of Tamil Nadu. The evidence as given by PW-3, the priest who performed the marriage, clearly shows that there was a valid marriage in accordance with H 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.