Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Bhauroa Shankar Lokhande and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
AIR 1965 SC 1564
JUDGES: J.R. Mudholkar, Raghubar Dayal and V. Ramaswami, JJ.
Date of Decision: 01-02-1965
FACTS:-
Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande (Appellant No. 1) and Indubai married to each other in the year 1956. He also married to Kamlabai in the year 1962 when Indubai was living. Deorao Shankar Lokhande (Appellant No. 2) is the brother of first appellant. These two appellants along with Kamlabai, her father and a barber (Accused No. 5) were tried for an offence under Section 494 of IPC, 1860. Appellant No. 1 was convicted under Section 494 IPC and Appellant No. 2 was convicted under Section 494 r/w Section 114 IPC and the latter three were acquitted by the Magistrate. Their appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed. Their revision petition to the High Court was also dismissed. Hence they preferred the appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. On other legal article, checkout personal injury law torrington ct.
ISSUE:-
Whether, for an offence to be committed under Section 494 IPC, it was necessary to establish that the second marriage has been duly performed in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to the form of marriage?
JUDGMENT:-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the expression “whoever…. marries” under Section 494, IPC means “whoever marries validly or whose marriage is a valid one”. If the marriage is not valid in itself then the question of its being void does not arise by reason of taking place during the lifetime of husband or wife. If the marriage is not valid, it is considered to be ‘no marriage’ in the eye of law. The bare fact that a man and a woman living as a husband and a wife does not give them the status of husband and wife even they declared themselves as husband and wife before the society.
The Court further stated that for declaring a marriage to be void for Hindus under Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, two essentials requirements are to be fulfilled namely, (1) the marriage is solemnized after passing of the act and (2) at the date of such marriage, either party has a living spouse. Unless the marriage ceremonies are duly performed, it cannot be said to be solemnized within the meaning of Section 17 of the said act. The word ‘solemnise’ means ‘to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and due form’. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that parties were considered to be married will not make the ceremonies a prescribed by any law or approved by any established custom. It is therefore essential, for the purpose of Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, that the marriage to which Section 494 IPC applies should be performed with proper ceremonies.
The Court further stated that there are two ceremonies which are essential to the validity of a marriage, whether it be in the Brahma form or the Asura form, namely, (1) Invocation before the sacred fire and (2) Saptapadi, which means taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride before the sacred fire. These ceremonies have to be performed for a valid marriage to come into existence.
The offence of bigamy is committed only if the required ceremonies of marriage are performed by the parties.
HELD:-
The Supreme Court held that unless the marriage took place by performing certain ceremonies as per the requirement of the law, that marriage cannot be said to be ‘solemnized’ within the meaning of Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of appellant no. 1 under Section 494, IPC and of appellant no. 2 under Sections 494 r/w Section 114 of IPC. The Court reversed the judgment of both the
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
