MANOJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the instance of first wife, cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 494, 114 r/w Section 34 IPC in C.C.No.2105/2013 of the JFCM, Chavakkad on the allegation that during the pendency of the appeal against the decree of divorce, her husband entered into a second marriage. Reliance was placed on Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinuh Prasad Srivastava (LAWS (SC) 1966 10 34 = AIR (SC) 1967 581) in support of the argument that the second marriage would stand hit by Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Another decision of the Apex Court in Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh (LAWS (SC) 1988 2 85 = AIR (SC) 1988 839) was also placed in support of the said argument.

(2.) The question came up for consideration is whether the offence under Sections 494 and 114 IPC would stand attracted when a second marriage was solemnized after the decree of divorce of first marriage, but before the culmination of its appeal and what would be the legal effect, when the appeal ended in dismissal confirming the decree of divorce.

(3.) To resolve the issue, it is necessary to have a better understanding of what actually amounts to the offence of bigamy as engrafted under Section 494 IPC in relation to Sections 15 and 17 of Hindu Marriage Act.