SMT. LAXMI DEVI versus SATYA NARAYAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 09-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SMT. LAXMI DEVI • 
v. 
SATYA NARAYAN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 9, 1994 
[P.B. SAWANT ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code 186{)-Section 494--Bigam)-'Saptapadi' Essential 
ceremony of Hindu maniage-Absence of proof-F actum of second marriage 
cannot be held to have been made out. 
Constitution of India-Art. 142-Ini:Jian Penal Code, 186{)-Section 
494-/Jigamy.,.-Jlactum of second marriage not proved-Husband living with 
alleged second wife-Award of Compensation to first wife in order to do 
complete ju_stice-Awarded. 
The first respondent was charged with bigamy an offence punishable 
under Section 494 IPC. The Trial Court held that the prosecution had not 
proved through proper witnesses 'Saptapadi' to establish the factum of 
second marriage of accused. The High Court found that it was not a fit case 
for grant of leave to appeal. The present appeal is filed against the im-
pugned order. 
In criminal appeal it was contended that though 'Saptapadi' has not 
been proved, there is enough evidence to establish the factum of second 
marriage and this is enough to bring out the charge. The respondents 
contended that it is 'Saptapadi' which establishes the factum of marriage, 
being an essential ceremony and without proof of such a ceremony, a case 
for bigamy cannot arise. 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the absence of proof of such a ceremony of'Saptapadi', 
the factum of second marriage cannot be held to have been made out. 
G 
[493-GJ 
Kanwal Ram v. H.P. Administration, AIR (1966) SC 614 and Priya Bal 
v. Suresh Chandra, AIR (1971) SC 1153, relied on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the first respondent is undoubtedly living 
H with respondent no. 4 as husband and wife. Merely because the appellant 
490 
LAXMIDEV!v. S. NARAYAN [MOHAN,J.] 
491 
is nodn a position to prove the factum of second marriage punishable A 
under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code that does not mean the 
appellant should be left in the. lurch. Exercising powers under Article 142 
of the constitution of India appellant is awarded compensation which will 
bring some solace when her life is dismally dark. The compensation of Rs. 
25,000 shall be paid by the accused to the appellant. [ 493-H; 494-A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
314 of 1981. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.78 of the Rajasthan High 
B 
Court in S.B. Cr!. Leave to Appeal No. 107 of 1978. 
C 
Goodwill Indeevar for the Appellant 
Vash~u Mathur and B.S. Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MOHAN, J. The first respondent was charged for an offence under 
Section 494 l.P.C., respondent No. 7 under Section 494 read with Section 
D 
109 of l.P.C. and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and 8-9 under Section 494 read 
with Section 120B of I.P.C. The trial took place before Judicial Magistrate E 
No. 1, Bikaner. It was held that the prosecution had not proved through 
proper witnesses 'Sapatpadi' to establish the factum of second marriage of 
accused (respondent No. 1). The High Court found that it was not a fit 
case for grant of leave to ~ppeal. Thus, the present criminal appeal against 
the impugned order dt.18.7.1978 was passed by High Court. 
The only point urged before us is that though 'Sapatpadi' a fact has 
not been proved, there is enough evidence to establish the factum of second 
marriage. There are eye witnesses who have seen the marriage. That is 
enough to bring out the charge. The prmciple relating to 'Sapatpadi' taking 
F 
of seven steps before the sacred fire cannot be insisted upon if as of fact G 
marriage is established. Therefore the courts below are wrong. 
The learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the courts 
·below have correctly appreciated the legal position. It is 'Sapatadi' which 
establishes the factum of marriage,being an essential ceremony. Withont 
proof of such a ceremony, a" case for bigamy cannot arise. 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
We have carefully gone through the evidence. The evidence of PW2 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
to PW5 does not establish the essential ceremony of marriage viz. 
'sapatpadi'. 
This Court in Kanwql Ram v. H.P. Administration, AIR 1966 SC 614 
has held as under : 
"It was contended for the appellants that this evidence was not 
enough to show that the marriage of Kubja and Kanwal Ram can 
be said to have been performed. We think this contention is 
justified. In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, 
Crl. A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.