PADULLAPARTHI MUTYALA PARADESHI Vs. PADULLAPARTHI SUBBALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of importance concerning the interpretation of Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Central Act XXV of 1955) read with Section 494 I.P.C. is involved in this reference which has been made by my learned brother, Basi Reddy, J.

(2.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner (1st accused) against Criminal Appeal No.338 of 1959 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry who dismissed it. That appeal arose out of C.C. No.66 of 1959 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate Ramachandrapuram. As against the 1st accused a private complaint was laid under Section 494 I.P.C. read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act XXV of 1955) alleging that this accused, a retired elementray School teacher contracted a marriage with the 2nd accused who is the daugther of accused 3 and 4, even though he had at the date of the marriage with the 2nd accused the complainant as his wife. The 2nd accused is the second wife of 1st accused; and accused 3 and 4 who are the father and mother of the 2nd accused, stood charged under Section 494 read with sections 109 and 114 I.P.C. The learned Additional District Munsif-Magistrate found that the second marriage of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused was solemnized at 2-00 a.m. on 1-9-1959 in Seethanagaram in Rajahmundry taluk, and believing the evidence of the 3rd accused who deposed as D.W.2 that A-2 and A-4 had no knowledge of the marriage acquitted them. The 1st accused was charged and convicted under Section 494 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 900/-; the 3rd accused was also found guilty under Section 494 I.P.C. read with section 114 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months rigogous imprisonment. On appeal by accused 1 and 3, the learned Sessions Judge held the view that the 3rd accused gave his daughter in marriage under a mistaken impression that the previous marriage of the 1st accused with the complainant has been annulled and that therefore, the 3rd accused did not intentionally aid the commission of the offence. He, therefore, allowed Criminal Appeal No.332 of 1959 filed by the 3rd accused, but confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the 1st accused as he dismissed Criminal Appeal No.338 of 1959.

(3.) A few more facts may be briefly stated: The complainant, Subbalakshmi, married Mutyala Paradesi (A-1) in 1947. She had three daughters by the 1st accused but only one of them is alive. They lived in Undrajavaram of Tanuku Taluk in West Godavri District. In or about 1955 and 1956, there were differences between the complainant and her husband. Thereafter the 1st accused arranged with Bulusu Suryanarayana (A-3) to marry his daughter Saraswathi (A-2). The 1st accused at about 3-00 P.m., on 31-8-1958 arrived at Seethanagram where Saraswathi and Suryanarayana lived, for having the marriage celebrated. Just about that time, Suryanarayana (A-3), father of Saraswathi, came to know that the 1st accused was having a wife alive and therefore he and P.Ws.2 and 3 questioned the 1st accused about it. It is in evidence that the 1st accused told them that the complainant left his protection and that her marriage with him was annulled. Regarding his, the 3rd accused examined as D.W.2 has further stated that "he (A-1) would have agreed to the present marriage if he had the prior marital tie cancelled in view of the prevailing Hindu Law." Bulusu Suryanarayanamurti also deposed that the marriage of the 1st accused with his daughter, Saraswathi, was celebrated at Seethangaram and that the 1st accused is his son-in-law and the husband of the 2nd accused. Subbalakshmi, the complainant, deposed as P.W.1 that she came to know of this marriage only two months prior to the filing of this complaint and she sent a registered notice (Exhibit A-2) later. P.W.2 deposed that he was orally invited to the marriage of A-1 with A-2 on 1-9-1958 and that he attended the marriage celebration which took place at 2-00 A.M. at Bulusu Suryanarayamurthis house. It was elicited from him in further cross-examination that no person from a different village came to attend that marriage and that the purohit that officiated at the marriage was alive and available in Seethanagaram. He stated that there were pipers and no presents were given by A-1 to A-2 or by A-3 to the bridal couple.