THANGAMANI S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOES a son require any written authorisation from his mother to prosecute his father and second wife for bigamy under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) ? Is it necessary that a complaint filed by the son should reflect that the complaint is filed 'on behalf of' the mother ? These are the main questions which arise for consideration in this case.

(2.) THE second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Magistrate's court against the father and his second wife. The offence alleged is under Sections 494 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). As per allegations in the complaint, complainant's father who is arrayed as first accused married his mother in accordance with the religious rites and two children were also born in the wed-lock. But, while the marriage was subsisting, his father married the petitioner herein. The complainant came to know about the second marriage only when divorce proceedings were initiated by his father against the mother and when he made certain enquiries in connection with the same. The complainant, being aggrieved by the second marriage of his father filed the complaint.

(3.) BUT , second respondent-son filed the complaint in his individual capacity and not on behalf of his mother. No authorisation or power of attorney was produced by him authorising him to file the complaint. Nothing is mentioned in the complaint showing that the complaint is filed on behalf of the mother. Therefore, the contention is that the complaint is filed contrary to the provision contained in Section 198(1)(c) of the Code and, hence, taking of cognizance is illegal.