BALABATI DAS Vs. SUBASH CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1986 passed by the J.M.F.C. (Transport), Berhampur in I.C.C. case No.10 of 1984 (T.R. No.502/84) wherein he acquitted the Respondents of the charge under Section 494 and 494/109 of I.P.C.

(2.) THE appellant was the complainant and the Respondents were accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the aforesaid complaint case. As per the complaint petition the complainant married accused No.1 on 19.1.1974 in village Morudi in accordance with their Brahmin caste custom and Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, father of the complainant gave gold ornaments weighing five tolas and silver ornaments of about 50 tolas, besides other house -hold articles, as dowry to accused No.1. The couple led a happy conjugal life in the matrimonial home for about three years, whereafter dissensions arose between the complainant in one hand and the Respondents and their family members on the other, for non -fulfilment of their further demand of dowry. Ultimately, accused No.1 left the complainant in her parental house with an animus of desertion. So, the father of the complainant with much difficulty arranged Rs.10,000/ -, paid the same to accused No.1 and escorted his daughter to her in -laws house. After some days, again the accused persons ill -treated and tortured the complainant and ultimately drove her out from the matrimonial home. In the meantime, while his marriage was subsisting with the complainant, accused No.1 being abetted by co -accused married one Suprava on 5.3.1983 in Manurikalua temple. Finding no other way, the complainant was compelled to file the aforesaid complaint case before the C.J.M., Berhampur against six accused persons, including the Respondents. After recording the initial statement of the complainant, cognizance of the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against all the accused persons numbering six and sometime after the case was transferred to the Court of J.M.F.C. (T), who framed charge for the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. against accused No.1 and under Sections 494/109 of I.P.C. against accused No.2 and discharged all other accused persons. The plea of the accused persons was complete denial of the marriage of the accused No.1 either with the complainant or Suprava Das.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the Appellant is the daughter of sister of her father. So in terms of Section 3(g)(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short 'the Act,), they are within the degree of prohibited relationship. As such their marriage is invalid unless custom and usages governing the parties sanctions such a marriage as envisaged under Section 5(iv) of the Act.