CHANNAMMA Vs. DHALAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of A complaint filed by one Channamma who is the petitioner against her husband the respondent complaining that ho had committed an offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the Penal Code. The Court below dismissed the complaint on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to try the case. The view taken by the Court below was that an adjudication by the District Court under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act that the second marriage contracted by the accused as alleged by the complaint was void, was a condition precedent to the Magistrate taking cognisance of the complaint. The complainant has preferred this revision petition to this court against the order of the Magistrate dismissing her complaint.

(2.) It is urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the view taken by the learned Magistrate that an adjudication by the Dist. Court under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act that the second marriage was void should precede a prosecution under Section 494 of the Penal Code is incorrect. It appears to me that this contention has to be accepted.

(3.) The Hindu Marriage Act contains no provision requiring any such adjudication by the District Court. On the contrary, Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of the Act is void if at the date of such marriage either^ party had a husband or wife living and that the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code shall apply accordingly. In other words, what that section provides is that if two Hindus married after the commencement of that Act and if at the date of such marriage either of them had a husband Or wife living, the marriage was void.