Case – S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami, 2001
Keywords IPC 494 Bigamy, Hindu Marriage Act, Saptapadi
Fact – The appellant S. Nagalingam married respondent complainant Sivagami on 6-9-1970. Three children were born from that wedlock. The respondent alleged that the appellant started ill-treating her. She left her marital home and started staying with her parents. The respondent came to know that the appellant had entered into a marriage with another woman on 18-6-1984 Kasturi. The respondent filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate against the appellant. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his judgment dated 4-3-1999 acquitted the accused. The respondent preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court of Madras. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant had committed the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. Now present case is with The Supreme court.
Issue – Whether the second marriage entered into by the appellant with the second accused, Kasturi, on 18-6-1984 was a valid marriage under Hindu law so as to constitute an offence under Section 494 IPC?
Contentions and Judgement
Law Point – The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494 IPC are:
1. the accused must have contracted the first marriage
2. whilst the first marriage was subsisting, the accused must have contracted a second marriage; and
3. both the marriages must be valid in the sense that necessary ceremonies governing the parties must have been performed.
In the instant case, the parties to the second marriage, namely, the appellant Nagalingam, and his alleged second wife, Kasturi, are residents of the State of Tamil Nadu and their marriage was performed at Thiruthani Temple within the State of Tamil Nadu. In the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is a State amendment by the State of Tamil Nadu, which has been inserted as Section 7-A.
Section 7-A applies to any marriage between two Hindus solemnized in the presence of relatives, friends or other persons. The main thrust of this provision is that the presence of a priest is not necessary for the performance of a valid marriage. Parties can enter into a marriage in the presence of relatives or friends or other persons and each party to the marriage should declare in the language understood by the parties that each takes the other to be his wife or, as the case may be, her husband, and the marriage would be completed by a simple ceremony requiring the parties to the marriage to garland each other or put a ring upon any finger of the other or tie a thali.
The evidence in this case as given by PW 3 clearly shows that there was a valid marriage in accordance with the provisions of Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act. PW 3 deposed that the bridegroom brought the “thirumangalam” and tied it around the neck of the bride and thereafter the bride and the bridegroom exchanged garlands three times and the father of the bride stated that he was giving his daughter to “kanniyathan” on behalf of and in the witness of “agnidevi” and the father of the bridegroom received and accepted the “kanniyathan”.
“Saptapadi” was held to be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in cases where it was admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them that was an essential ceremony. The appellant in the instant case, however, had no such case that “saptapadi” was an essential ceremony for a valid marriage as per the personal law applicable whereas the provisions contained in Section 7-A are applicable to the parties. In any view of the matter, there was a valid marriage on 18-6-1984 between the appellant and the second accused Kasturi. Therefore, it was proved that the appellant had committed the offence of bigamy as it was done during the subsistence of his earlier marriage.
The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellant committed the offence of bigamy.
Case Authority
Saptapadi was held to be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in cases where it is admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them that was an essential ceremony.
