KOODAPPAN Vs. KOTHAI ALIAS KOTHAI NACHIARAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner Koodappan has been convicted of an offence under S.494, I.P.C. by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin in C.C. No.67 of 1975 and was sentenced to (sic) undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli confirmed the conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE facts are: - P.W. 1 , Kothai alias Kothai Nachiarammal married the revision petitioner Koodappan, M.A., B.T., a teacher working in South Arcot District on 29th January, 1970 at Ambasamudram. When she became enceinte, she was sent to her father's house for confinement. The revision petitioner never cared to get her back after P.W. 1 was delivered of a baby, but P.W. 4 , adopted brother of P.W. 1 took her and the child and left them in the house of the revision petitioner and they were again turned out of the house of the revision petitioner. On 14th July, 1974 the revision petitioner married Venkatammal, the second accused, at Vaikuntapathi temple at Tuticorin. The marriage was solemnized by P.W. 2, an archagar of the said temple. A -3 to A -6 were also present in the temple. Two weeks after the marriage P.W. 1 heard about the news of the marriage from P.W. 4 and she preferred a complaint before the trial Court. A -4, the mother of the revision petitioner, died during the pendency of the trial and the learned Magistrate found the first accused -revision Petitioner guilty of the offence with which he was charged and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. The other accused were acquitted by the Magistrate The revision petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this revision.

(3.) WHAT is now contended before me, as earlier pointed out, is that a valid marriage has not been performed and therefore no offence under S. 494, I.P.C. is made out. The learned counsel contended on the authority in Bhaurao v. State of Maharashtra : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1564 that if the marriage is not a valid one according to the law applicable to the parties, no question of its being void by reason of its taking place during the life of the husband or wife of the person marrying arises and that if the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage in the eye of law. Now, it is not disputed, and in fact, admitted that the revision petitioner has married P.W. 1 earlier. Ex.P -2 is the invitation for the marriage. The evidence of P.W. 1 would show that the marriage between her and the revision petitioner is subsisting.