SWAPNA MUKHERJEE Vs. BASANTA RANJAN MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of Sm. Swapna Mukherjee challenging the validity of an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate, First Class, Midnapore.

(2.) The facts which have led up to the present proceedings may thus be stated briefly. The petitioner Swapna Mukherjee and opposite party 1 Basanta Ranjan Mukherjee were born Christians and they were married in Christian form in 1946. They had a few children and then it appears that in 1950 differences arose between the husband and the wife which led to the separation between the two. The opposite party 1 became a convert to Hinduism and he took a second wife, namely, Sm. Renuka Devi, opposite party 3 of this case. Opposite party 4 Jagadish Chandra Bhattacharji is the father of Renuka Devi and opposite party 2 Mrs. Parimal Hasini Mukherjee is said to have instigated the second marriage of Basanta Ranjan. According to the case of the petitioner, Basanta Ranjan Committed bigamy by contracting a second marriage with Renuka Devi in 1952 and opposite parties 2 to 4 are said to have aided and abetted the above marriage. Accordingly opposite party 1 was charged with having committed an offence under Section 494, I.P.C., opposite party 2 was charged with having committed an offence under Section 494/109, I.P.C., and the remaining two opposite parties Renuka Devi and Jagadish Bhattacharji were charged under Section 494/114. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty before trying Magistrate and the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons under Section 258(1), Criminal P. C. holding that they were not guilty of the charges framed against them. The present Rule is directed against this order of acquittal.

(3.) The broad facts of this case are not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that petitioner Swapna Mukherjee and opposite party 1 Basanta Ranjan Mukherjee were married in Christian form in a Church in Midnapore district in 1946. It is not also disputed that since 1950 differences arose between the parties which made a joint life practically impossible. From the records or the trying Magistrate it would appear that each side is recriminating the other with ill-treatment and desertion. We are not, however, concerned with the truth or otherwise of those allegations. What is important for our purpose is whether Basanta Ranjan committed bigamy by taking a second wife according to the Hindu form of marriage. The learned Magistrate held that before contracting a second marriage Basanta Ranjan became a convert to Hinduism and so in the opinion of the Magistrate no bigamy was committed by Basanta Ranjan because according to Hindu law he was entitled to take more than one wife after his conversion to Hinduism. If this decision of the learned Magistrate be taken as correct, then there would be no doubt that no offence of bigamy was committed by opposite party 1 and whatever other remedy the petitioner may have against her husband, she is not entitled to prosecute him successfully on a charge of bigamy.