TARAMANI Vs. B N RAJASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a pure point of law. The appellant's learned Advocate has demonstrated that the appellant who was the wife of Sri B. N. Rajashekar filed a complaint in the court of the learned munsiff and jmfc, tarikere being c. c. No. 75 of 1992 alleging that the husband who was the original a-1 had gone through a ceremony of marriage with a-3 and that they are living as husband and wife and furthermore that they have one child born to them. The remaining four accused have been arraigned before the court on the ground that they have abetted the commission of the criminal offence of bigamy on the part of the husband a-l and a-3. Briefly stated, the defence pleaded by a-l and a-3 was to the effect that they are only living together and that there is no evidence before the court to the effect that they have committed the offence of bigamy. Basically, the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the law on the point as far as Section 494, Indian Penal Code, is concerned has been expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of kanwal Ram and others v Himachal Pradesh administration and that this view has been followed by the Supreme Court in another decision in Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v Suresh Chandra Ghosh and Thirdly, in the case of Lingari Obulamma v L. Venkata reddy and others. I also find that the Supreme Court has followed the law as laid down in these decisions in the case of Smt. Laxmi Devi v Satya Narayan and others. In all these cases, the view taken was that irrespective of what the nature of the other supportive evidence may be, that it is necessary to establish that the parties have not only gone through a proper ceremony of marriage but that the essential ingredients that constitute a valid marriage particularly the rituals that are to be performed depending on the community to which the accused belonged must be held to have been satisfied. For instance, since in all these cases the parties were hindus the court held that in the absence of its being established that the saptapadi has been performed and in addition, in another case that the datta homa has taken place, that a conviction cannot be recorded as this is the actual proof of second marriage that is required. The complaint came to be dismissed and the accused have been discharged in view of the aforesaid legal position and the complainant wife has filed this appeal assailing the correctness of the dismissal order.

(2.) IT was submitted before me that there is overwhelming evidence in this case of the fact that a-1 and a-3 have performed a second marriage and the first ingredient that the learned Advocate relied on is the fact that a-l and a-3 are openly living together as husband and wife which fact has not been disputed but on the other hand, has been positively admitted insofar as a-l contends that a-3 is living with him, but in the capacity of a "mistress". The appellant's learned Advocate demonstrates to me that the marriage invitation has been produced and this would indicate that the a-1 and a-3 have publicly and openly solemnised a second marriage and that this invitation is proof of the fact that it has been made known to the local society many of whom were invited to the celebrations, that the two of them have contracted a second marriage. Next, what the learned Advocate points out to the court is that a-l and a-3 have a daughter and that having regard to the social set up in which they live and the aforesaid background namely the fact that the second marriage was publicly celebrated after which a-l and a-3 have been living as husband and wife, that it is a circumstance on which the complainant can rely for purposes of establishing that a marriage has in fact taken place and that the couple are not merely living together. The strongest piece of evidence on which the appellant's learned Advocate relies are the letters in the handwriting of a-3 in which she in terms refers to a-l as her husband and even uses the expression "pathi devaru" and his submission is that this is the strongest evidence of acknowledgement of the second marriage and the legal status of husband and wife and that a-l and a-3 would therefore be estopped in law from contending otherwise at the trial. Lastly, it is pointed out that as and by way of supportive evidence, the complainant has produced a letter from the friend of the husband who has been arraigned as a-6 wherein there is a clear statement that a-1 had requested him not to disclose about the second marriage to the complainant. Learned Advocate points out to me that but for the solitary requirement laid down in the aforesaid decisions namely that apart from all this evidence for a conviction, it will have to be necessarily established through unimpeachable evidence that the essential ingredients of the second marriage namely the saptapadi or the other rituals have taken place which fact also would have to be proved; that consequently the case has ended in favour of the accused. His further submission is that the complainant could not bear any children, that she was subjected to protracted physical and mental torture by a-1 who has even broken her nose on one occasion and dislocated her finger and permanently handicapped her after which she has been sent away from the matrimonial home and that her rights and status have been seriously endangered. He has projected a strong grievance that despite all this material, the accused has got away and is capitalising on the situation and he makes a strong plea that it is very necessary to reconsider the legal position particularly in cases of this type where the evidence is conclusive as otherwise, the complainant would not be in a position to secure justice. Learned Advocate has relied heavily on the decision in laxmi devi's case, supra, wherein the Supreme Court, realising the plight of the wife who has been displaced awarded a monetary compensation to her and he submits that for the time being, in keeping with decision the complainant should be awarded exemplary compensation. He points out to me that having regard to the economic status of the poor lady that she is not in a position to carry the case to the supreme court either by way of and appeal or a review but at the same time, he has made a strong plea to this court that the issues and the question involved be placed before the Supreme Court with a request that the law on the point be reconsidered.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent-accused, the simple submission that is canvassed is that in the light of the law on the point which I have already referred to, that the trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint and that no other view is permissible. I have carefully gone through the facts of the cases referred to by me earlier and even though as inevitably happens, there is a variation particularly as far as the type or quality of evidence is concerned, but at the same time the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on this court and all the subordinate courts in the country and therefore, there is no option except to confirm the decision of the trial court which follows the Supreme Court judgment.