SURESH SATYAMALLA KIWADANNAVAR Vs. GEETA KOM SURESH KIWADANNAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner in the petition has contended that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 25.2.1997 and the respondent complainant in her complaint made al legation that the petitioner has ill-treated her and she had been for delivery on 7.10.2012 and to look after her daughters, kept accused No.2 at Nidasosi and during this period the accused No.1 and accused No.2 had developed illicit relationship and thereafter they got married, which was registered on 24.5.2013. The complainant/respondent has been examined before the JMFC Court and the Court taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 494 read with section 149 of Penal Code in C.C.No.854/2016, which is pending before the JMFC Court.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the complaint does not disclose anything about the performance of saptapadi and no plea that accused marriage was performed as per Hindu customs and in order to attract the of fence under section 494 of IPC, the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case as per section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and there are no material to attract section 494 of IPC.