Since the evidence proved that the bridegroom tied the Thirumangalam (thali) around the neck of the bride and exchanged garlands three times in accordance with Section 7-A, the second marriage was valid in law. Consequently, the appellant was rightly convicted of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC.Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), Section 494 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955), Sections 7 and 7-A (Tamil Nadu State Amendment) – Offence of Bigamy – Proof of valid second marriage – Non-performance of Saptapadi – Validity of Suyamariyathai / Seerthiruththa marriage in Tamil Nadu.

advocatemmmohan

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3576, 2001 (7) SCC 487, 2001 AIR SCW 3372

BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

AUTHOR: K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 31, 2001

HEADNOTE

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), Section 494 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955), Sections 7 and 7-A (Tamil Nadu State Amendment) – Offence of Bigamy – Proof of valid second marriage – Non-performance of Saptapadi – Validity of Suyamariyathai / Seerthiruththa marriage in Tamil Nadu.

The appellant-husband married the respondent-complainant on September 6, 1970. While the first marriage was subsisting, the appellant entered into a second marriage with another woman on June 18, 1984, in Tamil Nadu. The respondent filed a complaint alleging bigamy under Section 494 IPC. The trial Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the ground that the essential traditional ceremony of Saptapadi (taking seven steps around the sacred fire) was not proved to have been performed, and thus no valid second marriage took place. The High Court of Madras reversed the acquittal, holding that under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act (inserted by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1967), the second marriage was valid and the appellant was guilty of bigamy. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

¶ 1. Essential Ingredients of Bigamy under Section 494 IPC:

To establish an offence under Section 494 IPC, the prosecution must prove: (i) the accused had entered into a valid first marriage; (ii) whilst the first marriage was subsisting, the accused contracted a second marriage; and (iii) the second marriage was validly solemnized in accordance with the law or customary ceremonies applicable to the parties.

¶ 2. Necessity of Saptapadi under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

Under Section 7 of the Act, Saptapadi is an essential ceremony for a valid Hindu marriage only where the customary rites and ceremonies governing either party specifically require it. Where the parties do not plead or establish that Saptapadi is an essential mandatory custom applicable to their community, the non-performance of Saptapadi does not per se render the marriage invalid.

(Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, (1971) 1 SCC 864; Lingari Obulamma v. L. Venkata Reddy, (1979) 3 SCC 80; Santi Deb Berma v. Kanchan Prava Devi, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 616; Laxmi Devi v. Satya Narayan, (1994) 5 SCC 545, distinguished).

¶ 3. Validity of Special Marriages under Section 7-A (Tamil Nadu Amendment):

For Hindus residing in Tamil Nadu, Section 7-A provides special provisions for Suyamariyathai (Self-Respect) and Seerthiruththa marriages. Under this provision, a marriage solemnized in the presence of relatives or friends is legally valid if completed by any one of the simplified acts: (a) a declaration by each party taking the other as spouse; (b) exchange of garlands or rings; or (c) tying of the thali (mangalsutra). The presence of a priest or performance of Saptapadi and Datta Homa is not required.

¶ 4. Commission of Offence:

Since the evidence proved that the bridegroom tied the Thirumangalam (thali) around the neck of the bride and exchanged garlands three times in accordance with Section 7-A, the second marriage was valid in law. Consequently, the appellant was rightly convicted of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC.