Introduction

This is a landmark judgment related to impact of ceremonies under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) upon the application of Section 17 HMA and 494 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Facts

• The appellant, Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande, was married to the complainant Indubai in 1956.
• Their marriage was solemnized as per religious rites and customs under Section 5 of the HMA.
• Later, he married Kamlabai in 1962 during the lifetime of his first wife.
• Hence, he was convicted under Section 494 of the IPC for the offence of Bigamy.
• Both Session Judge and High Court dismissed his appeal and revision.
• As a result, to which the appellant approached the Supreme Court contending it was required for the prosecution to prove that the Appellant's purported second marriage to Kamlabai in 1962 had been properly conducted in accordance with the relevant religious rituals required under Section 7 of HMA.
• In response to the above contentions the State contended that the second marriage of the appellant aligns with the customary practices of the community, specifically the "Gandharva" form of marriage.
• Consequently, the State argues that the appellant's second marriage should be considered valid.
• Additionally, the State asserted that for the offense under Section 494 IPC, the validity of the second marriage is not a prerequisite.

Issues Involved

• Whether the second marriage was solemnized by appellant valid or not?
• Whether the appellant is guilty under charges of Section 494 of IPC?

Observation

• The SC held that the prosecution has not successfully proven that the second marriage between the Appellant and Kamlabai in 1962 adhered to the customary rites mandated by Section 7 of HMA.
• The court further said that it unequivocally did not meet the essential requirements for a valid marriage under Hindu Law.
• Consequently, the union between the Appellant and Kamlabai does not fall within the scope of a "Solemnized Marriage" as outlined in Section 17 of HMA.
• As a result, it does not incur the consequences stipulated in Section 494 of IPC, even though the appellant's first wife was alive at the time of his second marriage to Kamlabai in 1962.

Conclusion

• In essence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 494 of the IPC cannot be upheld.
• The SC concluded that the charge of bigamy lacks substantiation. Therefore, the appeal of the husband was accepted.

Note

• Section 5 of HMA speaks about Conditions for a Hindu Marriage. It says:
  • A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:

• neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage,
• at the time of the marriage, neither party:

• is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind, or
• though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a or kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children, or
• has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity

• the bridegroom has completed the age of [twenty-one years] and the bride, the age of [eighteen years] at the time of the marriage,
• the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two,
• the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two.

• Section 17 of HMA talks about “punishment of bigamy”. It says:
  • Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC, shall apply accordingly.
• Section 7 of HMA talks about ceremonies of marriage whose Sub-section (1) states a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.