STATE TIMES NEWS
Jammu: In order to successfully prove charge for bigamy, proof of solemnization of second marriage in accordance with necessary ceremonies required under section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act (ceremony of Saptapadi) is sine-qua-non.
This was so held by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Doda, Amarjeet Singh Langeh while dismissing a complaint under section 494 of RPC titled “Sheela Devi V/S Ranjeet Singh and Others”. Complainant instituted a complaint alleging therein that her husband solemnized second marriage during subsistence of her marriage with him. In the complaint filed in the year 2006 before Chief Judicial Magistrate – Doda, complainant alleged that her marriage with accused/husband was solemnized some 5/6 years back in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and immediately thereafter, he turned her out from matrimonial home whereafter she filed a maintenance case wherein interim maintenance was granted in her favour and that in the meanwhile her husband solemnized second marriage with accused No. 2 during continuance of first marriage. Matter thereafter was committed to Sessions Court where charge under section 494 of RPC for the offence of bigamy was framed against three accused, one husband of complainant, another the alleged second wife and third the father of alleged second wife.
Holding that there is no proof of solemnization of valid second marriage between husband of complainant and other accused, Court observed “ceremony of Saptapadi (i.e., — the taking of seven steps by bride groom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire ) is a must in order to prove a valid married.”.
Noting that complainant failed to prove the second marriage between her husband and another and its solemnization consistent with Section 7 of Hindu marriage Act, Court further observed “Crucially however, complainant seems to have believed it immaterial to cite, produce and examine said witness (Pandit) as her witness and this omission alone brings the curtains down on her case” adding ” further there is no coherence, consistent flow and sequencing in the evidence led by complainant in the case to prove the alleged second marriage”. “Whatever may be the relation between accused 1 and 2 and whichever reason may have driven them to such a pass and this all notwithstanding, the evidence led by complainant in the case in hand does not prove the charge that accused 1 and 2 solemnized a valid marriage in accordance with Hindu law and rites so as to embrace the penal consequence of Section 494 of RPC.” With these observation Court dismiss the complaint and acquitted the accused.
