S THANGAMANI 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 S.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 S.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.) Petitioner second wife seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against her mainly on the ground that the second respondent, being the son, has no locus standi to file a complaint against her for offence under S.494 IPC. Sri. Alan Pappaly, learned counsel appearing for petitioner strongly contended that under S.198 of the code, the court is barred from taking cognizance of offence under S.494 IPC, except on a complaint filed by the aggrieved person, who can only be the spouse. According to him, as per Proviso.(c) to sub clause (1) of S.198 of the code, if the person aggrieved by the offence under S.494 IPC is the wife, a son car. file a complaint only "on her behalf" and not on his own behalf.