ISHWAR KUMAR MEHTA Vs. VARSHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VARSHA Rani the contesting respondent herein, filed a complaint against Ishwar Kumar Mehta the petitioner herein under-section 495, Indian Penal Code, on the broad allegation that the said Mehta had married her according to Hindu rites despite the fact that he already stood married to another lady and the factum of the first marriage was concealed from her. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, after recording preliminary evidence, found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint and accordingly summoned the accused inclusive of the petitioner vide order dated 25.5.1985. The said order was challenged in revision before the Sessions Judge Sirsa, but the same was dismissed on 13.11.1986. Now Ishwar Kumar Mehta has approached this Court by means of this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) RELIANCE has been placed by his learned counsel on two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Zora Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1984(1) Recent CR 380, 1984 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 17?, and Ujjagar Singh Numberdar and others v. Harbhajan Singh and another, (1984(2) Recent Criminal Reports 245) 1985 Crimes (Volume 1) taking the view that the second wife could not be said to be an aggrieved person and thus her complaint was barred under section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is to the contrary an earlier decision of the Division Bench reported in Balbir Singh v. Darshna Kumari, 1972(2) Marriage Law Journal 462, where the Bench has ruled that where a second marriage is brought about by the husband or the wife of the first marriage keeping the other spouse in absolute darkness of the first marriage, the second wife or the husband is no less aggrieved so far as the emotional and mental torture and discruption of family life is concerned. It was also probabilised that had such a person known about the existence of the first marriage, the said person would not have agreed to such marriage. It appears that before the Hon'ble Single Judge in Zora Singh's case (supra) and Ujjagar Singh Numerdar's case (supra), the decision of the Division Bench in Balbir Singh's case (supra) was not placed inviting attention. Had that been done, the Hon'ble Single Judges would have taken the view in accord with the rule laid down by the Divisional Bench. In view of the aforesaid precedent, it cannot said prima facie that Varsha Rani is not an aggrieved person. However, her word that she was not aware of the first marriage can always be questioned by the petitioner and the Court below can be shown with cogent evidence that she was aware of the first marriage and her conduct can be pressed into service to show that she was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That esentially is a question of fact and has to be thrashed out in the Court below.