LINGARI OBULAMMA Vs. L VENKATA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave has been filed by the complainant against the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitting the respondents, who had been convicted by the trial Court Magistrate and the Sessions Judge under Section 494 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 as modified by the Sessions Judge.

(2.) The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was her husband and while the first marriage was subsisting he had contracted a second marriage and was, therefore, guilty of the offence of bigamy as enshrined in Section 494 of I.P.C. According to the prosecution the first marriage of respondent No. 1 with the appellant took place on 22-4-68. After about 3 years of the first marriage the relations between the husband and wife became strained and they separated, but there was no divorce. On 1-4-1972 the respondent No. 1 married accused No. 4 and the other accused who were relations of the respondent participated in the marriage. On knowing this fact the appellant filed a complaint on 26-4-1972 on the basis of which the respondents were prosecuted and ultimately convicted under Section 494 of I.P.C. The case went up in revision to the High Court which accepted the revision and acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no proof of a valid marriage having been contracted between accused No. 4 and accused No. 1. Against this order the appellant filed a petition for special leave and after obtaining special leave, the appeal has been placed before us for hearing.

(3.) The short point involved in this appeal is as to whether or not the second marriage contracted by respondent No. 1 (A-1) with respondent No. 4 (A-4) was a legally valid marriage. The High Court pointed out that under the Hindu Law, two essential ceremonies of a valid marriage are Datta Homa and Saptapadi i.e. taking seven steps around the sacred fire. The High Court found that there was absolutely no evidence to prove that any of these two essential ceremonies had been performed, and, therefore, the marriage was void in the eye of law. In this view of the matter the High Court held that the conviction under Section 494 I.P.C. could not be sustained.