MUKTA JESING Vs. VALLABHADAS KALIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed by original complainant Muktaben after obtaining special leave of the Court as required under sec. 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Junagadh at Porbandar in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1971. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were convicted in Criminal case No. 846 of 1969 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Porbandar. Respondent No. 1 was convicted of an offence punishable under sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were convicted of an offence punishable under sec. 494 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 1 was sentenced to suffer one months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo one weeks further rigorous imprisonment. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were sentenced to suffer one days rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo seven days further rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The admitted facts are that complainant Muktaben who has died during the pendency of this appeal was the legally married wife of respondent No. 1. Their marriage had taken place according to Hindu religious sites and caste customs. There was some difference of opinion between them which ultimately culminated in filing of Civil Suit No. 180 of 1965 by respondent No. 1 against Muktaben for restitution of conjugal rights. A consent decree for restitution of conjugal rights came to be passed against Muktaben. On 9-12-1967 respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 392 of 1967 for a decree of divorce on the ground that Muktaben had not complied with the decree for restitution for a period over two years. That suit was challenged. Ultimately a decree for divorce came to be passed on merits in favour of respondent No. 1 on 20-9-1968. Muktaben preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1968 on 26-11-68 against the trial Courts decree for divorce. That appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate Court on 10-4-1970. It was during the period of the pendency of that appeal between 26-11-1968 and 10-4-1970 it is alleged by complainant Muktaben that respondent No. 1 performed second marriage with respondent No. 2 and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who are the relations of respondent No. 2 abetted the commission of the aforesaid offence of bigamy punishable under sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. That marriage is alleged to have taken place on 13-5-1969 Admittedly the parties are Hindus. They are of Lohana caste.

(3.) The learned trial Judge found that when marriage between complainant Muktaben and respondent No. 1 was subsisting second marriage was contracted knowing fully well that there was a valid subsisting marriage. He therefore passed the order of conviction and sentence as said earlier.