BONIGALA BODEMMA Vs. BONIGALA VEERAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an interesting question of law whether the second marriage of a Hindu with a Christian would bring him within the purview of section 494, Indian Penal Code. The facts out of which this appeal arose are as under.

(2.) A complaint was preferred by one Bonigala Bodemma, claiming to be the wife of A-1, against the respondents-accused, under section 494 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, with the allegation that on 6th June, 1958 at about 9-30 P.M., A-i had entered into a second marriage with A-2, the daughter of A-3, in the house of A-6 with the assistance of the other accused in the case, in Mariava village. This happened while the marriage of the complainant with A-1 was subsisting and, therefore, the respondents were liable to punishment under section 494, Indian Penal Code. The respondents pleaded ' not guilty ' . A-1 stated that he had not married the second accused, and that the case has been foisted on him on account of the factions in the village. The learned Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Bapatla, before whom the complaint was lodged, on examination of five witnesses on behalf of the complainant and fouron the side of defence, came to the conclusion that the form of marriage that was gone through is not recognised by Hindu Law and, therefore, there was no second marriage. In that view, he dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused of the charge under section 494, Indian Penal Code. Hence the appeal.

(3.) It may be stated at the outset that the learned Magistrate has not given a finding on the merits of the case. He has based his conclusion on the question of law involved in the case and dismissed the complaint, as in his view there could not be a valid marriage between a Hindu and a Christian. The question which he has considered is whether the alleged second marriage between A-1 and A-2 constituted a bigamous marriage so as to attract the provisions of section 494, Indian Penal Code, and referring to the evidence of the witnesses,so far as relevant to the purpose, he has come to the conclusion that as A-2 was stated to be a Christian there could not be a valid marriage between her and A-1 who professed Hindu religion. There is no discussion in the judgment as to the form of marriage apart from a reference to the religion of the contracting parties. Even in regard to the religion of A-2 he has found her to be a Christian as some of the witnesses examined by the complainant have stated that her parents were Christians. Actually there is no evidence to show what was the religion she was following at the time of the alleged marriage. In the absence of it, the form of marriage, i.e., the ceremonies at the celebration would have had material bearings, but unfortunately as there is no finding on that point we have to proceed on the footing that A-2 was following the religion of her parents at the time of the alleged marriage. The question is whether a marriage so celebrated would bring the accused within the ambit of section 494, Indian Penal Code, It lays down that,