CASE ANALYSIS OF

LINGARI OBULAMMA V. L. VENKATA REDDY & OTHERS

BY

BENISHA .R

INTERN

3RD YEAR,

SASTRA UNIVERSITY, THANJUVUR,

MOB- 9597192390, 9035212605.

Email- rajendranbenisha@gmail.com

26thAPRIL 2020
 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The appellant and the respondent were married on 22 April 1968 as husband and wife. After
three years of marriage the relationship between the husband and wife had deteriorated and the
wife lived separately for several years, but there was no divorce. The husband claimed that the
wife had married another person during their marriage. The alleged second marriage took place
on 1 April 1972. The respondent no. 1 and the complainant no. 4 both engaged in the marriage
along with other accused who were linked to the respondent. On 6 April 1972, the appellant
lodged a complaint on the grounds of which the respondent and the accused No 4 were charged
and subsequently convicted in compliance with Sec 494 of IPC. The wife had lodged a complaint
for revision. The High Court admitted the petition on the grounds that the marriage was invalid
as that there was no proof to prove that the necessary ceremonies needed to be performed in a
Hindu marriage, namely duttahoma and saptapadi, had been performed. The High Court
acquitted the accused. The appellant has filed for a special leave against the decision of the High
Court.

ISSUE OF THE CASE.

1. Whether the second marriage contracted between the Respondent No. 1 and the Accused
No. 4 is legally valid?
2. Whether the respondent can marry the accused?

RULE OF LAW

Section 494 of Indian Penal Code talks about marrying again during the lifetime of husband or
wife: Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is
void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the requirements to be met in a marriage
between any two Hindus. One prerequisite is that at the time of the marriage, neither party has a
spouse living. Section 7 of the Act states that (1) a Hindu marriage can be solemnized in
accordance with the normal rites and ceremonies of either party; and (2) where these rites and
ceremonies include the Saptapadi (i.e., taking seven steps jointly before the holy fire by the
bridegroom and the bride), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is
taken.

Section 11 of the Act deals with marriages which are void. One of the conditions, if contravened,
that makes a solemnized marriage null and void after the beginning of the Act, is if any party has
a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Section 17 of the Act, which reiterates the position
and provides for the punishment of bigamy, thus states: Any marriage between two Hindus
solemnized after the start of this Act is void if either party had a living husband or wife at the
date of such marriage; and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code shall
apply accordingly.

BIGAMY IN INDIA

Bigamy is the state of having two wives or two husbands at the same time. The second marriage
to someone who is already legally married is invalid and can be annulled, although there is no
effect on the first marriage. An individual who knowingly commits bigamy is guilty of a crime
but it is rarely charged unless it is part of a fraudulent scheme to gain the property of another
individual or some other crime.

Bigamy is a marriage in which one party is already legally married. Local laws should be
checked but usually a person who discovers that they are married to a bigamist may have a judge
declare the marriage invalid and pursue criminal charges against the bigamist. Laws vary by state
but a person does not commit bigamy in general if:

 He fairly assumes his former marriage is invalid or has been dissolved by death, divorce
or annulment
 He and his predecessor spouse lived apart for a fixed number of consecutive years prior
to the subsequent marriage, during which time he didn't know the previous spouse was
alive.
Bigamy is prohibited under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872. The law states that any
other marriage in the lifetime of the existing husband / wife should be considered void and
should be punished for such offence because of it taking place during the lifetime of such a
husband or wife. Where, during the life of the first husband or wife, a person marries more than
once, he or she will be punished with imprisonment that can stretch to seven years and is also
liable for fines.

When is Bigamy an offence? What needs to be proved?

Evidence of the following ingredients should be proved by the prosecution:

 The accused must be married.
 He must have entered into Second Marriage.
 There will be a first engagement.
 The first husband / wife needs to be alive. Both marriages must have the requisite
ceremonies completed, and must be legitimate.

OTHER PROVISIONS REALTING TO BIGAMY OTHER THAN

INDIAN PENAL CODE

Although the Indian Penal Code prohibits and punishes Bigamy, it is important that Indian
Personal Laws prohibit bigamy. We can go through the following Indian Personal Laws to
understand this definition-:

 Hindu Marriage Act – Paragraph 1 of subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) states the particular
religion and persons fall under this Act. Thus, under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, any person who is considered Hindu under Section 1, and marries again during the
lifetime of the first husband / wife shall be punished under the provisions of the Indian
Penal Code.
 Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act – Section 5 of this Act declares Bigamy null and void or
dissolved, and imposes a fine under Indian Penal Code Sections 494 and 495.
  Christian Marriage Act – While there is no clear provision for Bigamy under the
Christian Marriage Act, Form of Register Marriage is for Bachelor / Spinster and
Widow / Widower only.For Marriage Certificate Section 60 Sub Section (2) specifies that
"None of the persons planning to be married shall have a wife or husband still alive," and
making a false oath or declaration is punishable under Section 193 of the IPC, this
clarifies that more than one marriage would be deemed unlawful under this act.
 Special Marriage Act 1954 – Section 44 of this Act provides for Bigamy to be punished
and imposes a penalty under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.
 Global Marriage Act 1969- Section 19 of this Act allows for Bigamy to be prosecuted and
imposes a fine under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.
 Muslim marriage law – This legislation has no codification or clear provisions. It is
written in the Quran that a Muslim man can marry two, three or four times if he is
capable of treating and respecting each woman equally after marriage, and not just one.

If a person marries more than once under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Parsi Marriage and
Divorce Act, the Christian Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act,
he / she is punished under the Indian Penal Code. And according to the law of Muslim marriage,
any Muslim male who commits Bigamy is not invalid and therefore not an offence.1

Punishment for abetment of Bigamous marriage?

Whoever abets Bigamous crime shall be punishable in accordance with section 494 read in IPC
Section 109. A priest who officiates a bigamous marriage would be an abettor, but at such a
marriage the mere presence of people does not automatically constitute abetment. Similarly,
providing in-house accommodation for such a marriage does not amount to abetment per se.

LAWS ON BIGAMY IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

Bigamy, or the act of marrying some other person other than his or her spouse is considered
illegal in most of the western counties even today including UK, Britain, Whales etc.Laws on

1
https://blog.ipleaders.in/laws-on-bigamy-in-india/.
bigamy were first established in ancient Rome and spread to Christendom. During the 16 th
century, the male bigamists were given harsh punishments such as execution, exile etc. In UK,
bigamy is a crime under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 and is punishable with seven years of
imprisonment.Accordingto Italian Penal Code,Article 556, any person who commits bigamy
shall be punishable with imprisonment ranging from one to five years. In several countries,
bigamy is illegal like in Colombia, it is illegal and yields to felonies as civil forgery or
suppression of information and in China it’s illegal and punishable up to two years and up to
three years in case of soldiers.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

 The second marriage was legally valid and the offence of bigamy was committed under
Section 494 of IPC.
 The respondent committed bigamy as she married when the first marriage was subsisting.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

 The second marriage was void, and therefore, bigamy was not committed.
 The appeal must be dismissed.

ARUGMENTS ADVANCED

One of the essential ingredients of the offence of bigamy id the existence of a previously
contracted marriage. It attaches criminality to the second marriage by a husband or by a wife
who has a living spouse.

Section 494 itself enlists some essential ingredients such as:

 The first marriage should be subsisting at the time of second marriage

 The first marriage should be legally valid.
 The first husband or the wife should be alive at the time of second marriage.

The prosecution proved that the second marriage is valid because, here in the instant case, the
accused no.1 married the accused no.4 by tying a ‘yarn thread’ to the bride’s neck,and this
particular ritual was considered as an essential marriage ceremonypractice in the Reddy
community of Raialesna area, to which the accused belonged. All the necessary ceremonies
required by the personal law by the accused was performed.2

In the appeal to the High Court, the appellant contended that under the custom followed to which
the parties belonged, saptapadi was not an essential ceremony required to constitute a valid
marriage.It was held by justice Bhushan Dharmadhikari and Justice Swapna Joshi that, “Unless
the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and in due form it can’t be
solemnized, thus, the marriage doesn’t come within the purview of the Hindu Marriage Act.”The
appellant and the respondent did not live together and were separated but were not divorced. Any
person marrying in the life span of his or her spouse when not divorced commits bigamy.In
support of the appeal Mr. Roa has submitted that the High Court held a wrong view in the instant
case, the parties belonged to the Reddy community and were governed by its customs and the
customs mentioned by the court were not necessary. The spouse can’t marry when the other
spouse is living without getting a divorce decree. The husband and wife were separated after
three years of marriage for a period of two years before the second marriage, this further holds
that the husband and wife still in relation to the first marriage. In the instant case the P.W.1 i.e.
the purohit state that the parties belonged to the Reddy Community of Telagana area where only
tying yarn thread is enough to solemnize the marriage. Construing the provisions of the
HinduMarriage Act, inK. Purnachandrav. K. Rao Sita Devi (1979) 1 APLJ (HC) 339 3, it was
found that in the trial pursuant to Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, the plaintiff is
responsible for establishing that both the marriages pleaded by him or her and were solemnized
in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies either prescribed by the Hindu Law
governing the parties or recognized by the custom obtaining in the community to which the
parties belong and that admission of either the first or the second marriage by the accused is no
evidence of the marriage.

According to Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce:the husband and wife is
divorced naturally when a spouse is missing or separated for a period of seven and nit been
heard.

The basic essentials for valid marriage for solemnization between two Hindus are:

2
Gopal Lal v. state of Rajasthan,AIR [1973] SC 713; Manju Ram Kalita v State of Assam [2009] 12SC330.
3
K. Purnachandra V. K. Rao Sita Devi, [1979] APLJ (HC) 339.
 a) Saptapadi :7 steps in front of the sacred fire and
b) Dutta Homa

In Venkata Subbarayadu Chetty v. TanguturuVenkatiahShresti, the A.P. High court held

that “there are two ceremonies to the validity of a marriage, whether the marriage be in the
Brahma form or the Asura form, namely (1) innovation before the sacred fire and 2) saptapadi,
that is taking seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacredfire. ‘It was
also held that until and unless the marriage is ‘celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies
and due form’ it cannot be said to be solemnized.In Abdul Hamid v. Smt. Asghar, 4 it was held
that the words ‘whoever…. marries’ occurring in section 494 mean ‘whoever marries validly or
legally’. Therefore, it can be said that only the person who marries validly or leally when their
spouse is alive is considered as bigamist.

The prosecution must prove the that the second marriage was valid – S. Nagalingam v.
Sivagamiin Kanwal Ram v. Himachal Pradesh Administration,5 the Lordships of the
Supreme Court recapitulated the principles of Bhauroa Shankar Lokhande&Anr v. State Of
Maharashtra,6holding that in a prosecution for bigamy, the second marriage should be proved
as a fact along with the necessary ceremonies having been performed. Though rejecting the
petition contesting the validity of Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.K. Bench
Division. Kaul, J.C. And to T.S. sivaganam, J. Referring to the decision of S. Nagalingam v.
Sivagami, the validity of Section 7-A [as incorporated in the Hindu Marriage Act (Tamil Nadu
Amendment), 1967] was upheld. In a second marriage, the admission of marriage by the accused
is not evidence of it for the purpose of proving the marriage in adultery or a bigamy case. In the
instant case, the second marriage did not fulfill the requirements of the Hindu marriage law for
solemnization. The High Court held that according to Hindu law, two vital ceremonies of a
legitimate marriage are Dutta Homa and Saptapadi, i.e., taking seven steps around the sun, it was
found that there was absolutely no proof to claim that either of these two vital ceremonies had
been performed, so that the second marriage was held void in the eyes of law.It was held by the
High Court the conviction under Section 494 IPC could not be sustained. This is needless to
claim that since the plaintiff and the accused lived together as a husband and wife, the question

4
Abdul Hamid v. SmtAsghai, [1973]CrLJ1710 (All).
5
Kanwal Ram v. Himachal Pradesh Administration,[966] AIR 614, [1966] SCR (1) 539.
6
Bhauroa Shankar Lokhande&Anr v. State of Maharastra, [1965]AIR 1564, 1965 SCR (2) 837.
of bigamy does not arise until proof indicates that there is long cohabitation with the second wife
and that the form of marriage with the second wife has been shown by material evidence such as
the name of the claimant at the time of the alleged second marriage, the time and the date of the
solemnization of such marriage.7

HELD BY THE COURT

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the second marriage was a valid
marriage and the court was also justified in acquitting the respondents. In this instant case there
were three major points that proved that application ofSection 494 cannot be sustained:

a) There was no proper evidence to show that there was no custom such as tying yarn thread
instead of manga sutra among the parties which outweighed the written text of Hindu
Law.
b) The husband did not clearly mention that the parties were governed by the custom in
derogation of Hindu Law.
c) The priest had utterly neglected the customs to be followed in respect of a legitimate
marriage; the witness was therefore incompetent to depose the presence of the customs of
the parties concerned. And they did not hold the two main ceremonies. Therefore, the
case, Dolganti Raghava Reddy, was held inapplicable in this instant

The short point of this appeal is whether or not the second marriage that respondent No. 1(A-
1) contracted with respondent No. 4(A-4) was a legally legitimate marriage. The High Court
found out that under the Hindu Law Datta Homa and Saptapadi, i.e. taking seven steps
around the sacred fire, are two important ceremonies of a valid marriage.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

The complainant lodged this special leave appeal against the order of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh acquitting the respondents who had been convicted under Section 494 I.P.C by the
Magistrate and the Judge of the Sessions and sentenced to six months in prison and a fine of Rs.
100/-as ruled by the Judge of the Court. The point was whether the marriage between respondent
7
Prem Sankar Narayanan v. Lalitha Narayanan, on 24 October, 2017.
No. 1(A-1) with respondent No. 4(A-4) was a legally valid marriage. The High Court noted that
two basic ceremonies of a legitimate marriage under the Hindu Law are Datta Homa and
Saptapadi, i.e., taking seven steps around the sacred fire. The High Court found that there was
absolutely no evidence to prove that any of these two essential ceremonies had been performed
and, therefore, in the eyes of law, marriage was void. The High Court held that the conviction
under Section 494 in that respect couldn't hold on.

In support of the appeal, Mr. Rao argued that the High Court had taken a wrong view of the law
and overlooked the fact that, in the present case, the parties belonged to the Reddy Community
and were therefore governed by the rule of law. The other ceremonies that were necessary under
the custom were performed according to Purohit (P.W.1). Unfortunately, however, in the present
case, it is impossible for us to believe that the second marriage was valid. In the first place, there
was no clear indication in the complaint as to whether the parties were governed by customs in
derogation from the Hindu law. The P.W. stated that "Among Kapus, according to their customs
each community will perform the marriage. Some Kapus have only 'Yarn Thread' instead of
Mangala Sutram. I do not know what is the custom (Acharam) of the accused. There was no
custom of putting sacred fire. There was no 'Agni Gundam' (Sacred fire and no going round 7
times by the bride and bridegroom). I do not know whether that is true of a secret marriage".It
would appear from the above statement by P.W. 1 that he had made it clear that he did not know
what the accused's custom was. Having shown complete ignorance as to whether or not the
accused was governed by the custom, what the witness really provedwas that, in the second
marriage contracted by respondent No. 1, he did not perform these two ceremonies. Mr. Rao,
however, vehemently argued that this witness proved that the customs of Saptapadi were not
prevalent in the Reddy Community and that it was sufficient to place the 'Yarn Thread' instead of
the Mangal Sutra. In the final analysis, there was no evidence to show that there was any custom
among the Reddys that overcame the written text of the law. The solid evidence of P. W. 1,
clearly falls short of the standard to prove this.However, Mr. Rao strongly relied on the decision
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in some other case to show that the two ceremonies
mentioned above were not necessary for the Reddy Community of Telangana. In the first place,
the decision referred to above in the case Re: Dolgonti Raghava Reddy and Another,8 clearly
show that, in that case, the Court was concerned only with Reddy Community.In its judgment,
8
Dolgonti Raghava Reddy &Anr., AIR [1968] (AP) 117.
the Court of Justice noted that, as far as the accused is concerned, it belongs to the Reddy
Community, not in the Telanganaarea, but in the Rayalaseema area. Moreover, since the
existence of the custom was neither mentioned in the complaint nor proven in the evidence, it
would be difficult for this Court to rely on the decision of the High Court, which was based on
the evidence, the facts and the circumstances of the case before it. In these circumstances, we
agree with the High Court that the prosecution did not prove the second marriage contracted by
the High Court by respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 4. The High Court was fully justified in
acquitting the respondents. The High Court with all the concerns mentioned came to a
conclusion stating that the first marriage was valid and subsisting but the second marriage was to
be held void, thus, the respondent and accused no. 4 can’t be convicted under Section 494 of
I.P.C. The appeal is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In the instant case, the essential ingredients were not performed for a valid marriage, and the
prosecution failed to prove that the second marriage between accused no. 1 and accused no. 4
were legally valid. Here the appellant filed a special leave which was dismissed by the courts
stating the essential conditions for bigamy were not proved.

For anoffenceof bigamy to be proved, all be basic ingredients mentioned in Section 7 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 494 ofI.P.C. along with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 should be proved. Only when the first marriage is subsisting, the second marriage is
considered as bigamy when done legally and held valid.

REFERENCES

 GopalLal v.State of Rajasthan,AIR179 SC 713.

  Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam,(2009)12SC330.
 Pashaura Singh v.State of Punjab &Anr.,(2010) 11 SCC 749.
 Abdul Hamid v. SmtAsghai,[197] Cr LJ1710 (All).
 S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami,(2001) 7 SCC 487.
 Kanwal Ram v. Himachal Pradesh Administration,1966] SCR (1) 539.
 Bhauroa Shankar Lokhande&Anr v. State of Maharastra, 1965 SCR (2) 837.
 Dolgonti Raghava Reddy & Anr., AIR [1968] AP 117.
 Prem Sankar Narayanan v. Lalitha Narayanan,on 24 October, 2017.
 K. Purnachandrav. K. Rao Sita Devi,[1979] APLJ (HC) 339.
 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/hindu-marriage-invalid-without-
rituals-rules-hc/articleshow/57008989.cms
 Laws on Bigamy in India-https://blog.ipleaders.in/laws-on-bigamy-in-india/

BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR

Benisha R is pursuing B.B.A. LLB (Hons.) in SASTRA University. She is also doing the
Company Secretary Course. She has also worked as a core committee member for the moot
competition in the University. She is also a member of the organizing committee in Nani
PhalkivalaMoot Court Competition in SASTRA University. She is also a member of the legal aid
committee in college, that conducts many free legal aid campsand the co-coordinator of
publicrelation in the college cultural team. She has alsoparticipated in moot courts and published
articles.