DILIP LAXMAN BOBADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 14th February, 1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, convicting the petitioner (original accused No. 1) for the offence punishable under section 494 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed this revision application

(2.) THE complainant Sumitra Dilip Bobade has filed a complaint against the petitioner, his brother and mother for the offence punishable under section 494 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C. , for short), before the Metropolitan Magistrates 17th Court, Mazagon, Bombay. It was alleged that complainant Sumitra was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner; the marriage has taken place at Bombay on 5th May, 1979 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the complainant resided with accused No. 1 and his parents and other family members; after sometime, the complainant was often taunted by the accused on account of the fact that sufficient cash and ornaments were not given by her parents; she was also harassed and treated in a poor manner; on 13th July, 1980, accused No. 1 threw a burning stove on the complainant whereby she sustained serious injuries and she was admitted at the Nair Hospital; she was persuaded by the petitioner not to involve him in the incident when the police recorded her statement and she obliged. After returning from the Hospital, she was completely neglected by all the accused. Finally, on 26th March, 1983, she was driven away from the matrimonial home and since then, she is residing with her parents. She had filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. The Court had awarded maintenance to her from accused No. 1. It is her say that while the marriage between her and accused No. 1 was subsisting, on 2nd April, 1984, accused No. 1 married a girl named Alka, daughter of Pandurang Shinde, of village Sonai, District Ahmednagar. It is also averred that the marriage ceremony took place at Paithan, District Aurangabad. All the accused had misrepresented to the relatives of Alka that the marriage of accused No. 1 with the complainant was not subsisting and that she was divorced. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were all abetters of the commission of the offence of bigamy by accused No. 1 inasmuch as they arranged, participated and assisted in the second marriage of accused No. 1.

(3.) AFTER recording the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 494 of I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (the brother and mother of accused No. 1) were convicted for the offence punishable under section 494 read with section 114 of the I. P. C. and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.