OMANA PAZHANCHIRA HOUSE Vs. SANALKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 to 9 in C.C. No. 711 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court I, Attingal. They seek to quash the entire proceedings in the above Calendar case.

(2.) The above case was taken on file on the basis of Annexure A-1 complaint filed by the de facto complainant/first respondent herein. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with the first accused committed offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. As per the complaint, the marriage between the first accused and the first respondent was solemnised on 30.10.1995 at the Kadinamkulam S.N.D.P. Sakha Mandiram as per the customary rites of the community to which they belonged and the marriage was registered at the Kadinamkulam Panchayat. After the marriage, they lived together for about a month in the matrimonial house. It is further alleged in the complainant that the first accused then went to the Gulf country after leaving the first respondent at her parental house and that even though he came on leave on two occasions, he did not make any attempt to take the first respondent to his house. While so, the first respondent filed O.P. No. 188 of 1997 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram claiming maintenance from the first accused. The Family Court allowed the original petition and directed the first accused to pay Rs. 400 per month to the first respondent. According to the first respondent, in spite of the above direction, no amount has been paid to her. It is further alleged in the complaint that at the instigation of the petitioners herein, the first accused married the sixth accused/5th petitioner herein on 5.6.2003 at Sarkara Devi Temple, Varkala which comes under the Travancore Devaswom Board. This marriage was also entered in the register and certificate was issued from the temple. According to the first respondent, the petitioners herein persuaded the first accused to conduct the second marriage and hence they committed offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Annexure A-1 complaint does not constitute any offence as alleged against the petitioners or the first accused. The first accused is not a party to this Crl. Miscellaneous case. The question to be decided is whether the petitioners conspired together with the first accused and persuaded him to conduct a second marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the first respondent.