URMILA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) pposite Parties Nos. 2, 3, and 4 along with others were charged under Section 494, I.P.C. read with Sections 120B/109, I.P.C. by the Munsif Magistrate III, Bareilly and convicted on the ground that opposite party No. 2 Brij Mohan Lal Katiyar had contracted a valid marriage with opposite party No. 3 Smt. Nisha Devi while the revisionist Smt. Urmilla Devi, the first wife of Brij Mohan Lal was living. Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1991 was decided by Sessions Judge, Bareilly vide judgement dated 25-4-1992 through which the appeal was allowed and the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted.

(2.) Whereas the Magistrate had found that the so-called marriage between Smt. Nisha Devi and Brij Mohan Lal was valid, the Sessions Judge, Bareilly found that the alleged second marriage could not be proved because necessary ceremonies had not be been performed. The only point to be determined in this revision is as to whether the alleged marriage of Brij Mohan Lal and Smt. Nisha Devi was valid. Learned Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence of 'Saptapadi' or other ceremonies of marriage because there was evidence of only three and a half 'parikrama' of the sacred fire according to Arya Samaj customs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist Sri S. K. Srivastava, Advocate has argued that according to Arya Samaj custom three and a half rounds of sacred fire were enough to complete the marriage. In reply Sri A.K. Awasthi, learned counsel opposite parties has argued that unless seven rounds of sacred fire are taken by the bride or the bride-room the ceremonies of marriage are not complete and, therefore, the revision has no force. He also argued that because there is no evidence of the ceremony of Saptpadi having been performed, the marriage cannot be termed as a valid marriage.