MANJULA NAYAK Vs. RAMA CHANDRA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the complaint filed by the appellant, the respondent was prosecuted for the offence of bigamy punishable Under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The trial Judge acquitted the respndent holding that the appellant was not able to establish the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The said order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) IT is the allegation of the appellant that she married to the respondent on 22 -6 -1979 as per the Hindu customs and rites and both of them lived together as husband and wife. During the year 1980, she (the appellant) was ill and bed ridden and neither the respondent nor any members of his family took care of her for which she came back to her father's house. It is the allegation of the appellant that during the period of her absence, the respondent remarried one Pravati in the temple of Lord Jagannath at Jajpur for the second time as per the Hind customs and rites and now both the respondent and the said Pravati are staying as husband and wife.

(3.) IT has to be first examined whether marriage was celebrated between the appellant and the respondent as alleged. PW 1 is the appellant herself. She stated that one Surendra Dhal was the mediator for the marriage whereas PW 2, the father of the appellant stated that one Babu Dhal was the mediator. PW 3. neighbour of the appellant stated that one Kalandi Mohanty was the proposer for the marrage. None of the so -called mediator was examined in the case. The appellant stated that her father PW 2 performed the Kanyadan whereas PW 2 stated that his brother Gopinath performed Kanyadan. Regarding the exact date of marraige PW 1 stated that the marriage took place on 22 -6 -1979 but during her initial deposition, she stated that she married to the appellant on 19 -6 -1979. Marriage invitation card would have been in the circumstances the best piece of evidence in proof of the date of marriage but PW 4 stated that no invitation cards were printed on the occasion of marriage. It is the case of the appellant that her marriage with respondent was performed as per the Hindu customs and rites. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that a Hind marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto and such rites and ceremonies may include the Saptapadi which is taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire. The appellant stated in her evidence that there was the Saptapadi after which the marriage was concluded. According to her the Saptapadi was performed in the last phase which was done by walking over seven small pitchers. The 'Saptapadi' as is understood in Hindu Law does not contemplate of waking over seven pitchers. Where the form of marriage adopted by the parties includes the Saptapadi, what is necessary, is taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire and the marriage becomes complete when the seventh step is taken. This is in accord with the existing law. There is no evidence to show if there is any custom or practice prevailing with the parties of walking over the seven pitchers to perform the Saptapadi. Assuming if any such custom or practice is permissible, the version of the appellant does not find any corroboration and the evidence is discrepant and untrustworthy. The appellant herself was not able to say if respondent walked over the pitchers. PW 2 stated that when the newly wedded couple walked over the pitchers, some of which were broken due to the walk of the respondent and the remaining pitchers were broken by the appellant in course of her walk. PW 3 gave a different picture by stating that the Saptapadi means breaking of small earthen pitchers by the couple with the help of their toes jointly and each pitcher is to be broken separately by the couple after chanting of mantras by the priest. In the face of such unreliable and discrepant evidence, it has to be held that the appellant has failed to establish that she had married the respondent.