DATE OF JUDGMENT-: 17-12-2002
BENCH-: CJI, DORAISWAMY RAJU, S. N. VARIAVA, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI
FACTS
On September 6, 1970, S Nagalingam and Sivagami entered into marriage, eventually having three children. Allegations of mistreatment and abuse prompted Sivagami to reside with her parents. It was during this period that she learned of Nagalingam's second marriage to Kasturi on July 18, 1984. Displeased with the trial court's decision to acquit all defendants, Sivagami initiated a criminal appeal before the Madras High Court.
ISSUES
Assessing the legality of the second marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Examining whether the inclusion of the "Saptapadi" ritual is essential for deeming a marriage as valid.
Investigating whether the necessary elements of the offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code are met.
RATIONALE
In the case, the court considered several key aspects. Firstly, it acknowledged both parties as residents of Tamil Nadu, where the marriage took place. A unique State Amendment in Tamil Nadu to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, eliminated the necessity of a priest for a valid marriage. The court also weighed the priest's testimony, highlighting ceremonial actions during the marriage, affirming it adhered to the customs of the parties.
Regarding the significance of "Saptapadi," the court determined its importance based on the parties' customs. In this instance, the appellant failed to establish "Saptapadi" as crucial within their community, leading to the recognition of the marriage as legitimate under personal law.
For the third issue, the court scrutinized the essential elements of bigamy under Section 494 IPC, emphasizing the requirement for both marriages to be valid and solemnized according to applicable customs and regulations.
JUDGEMENT
In this case, the court applied Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, declaring marriages void if either party had a living spouse during the subsequent marriage. However, the unique provision of Section 7-A in Tamil Nadu permitted marriages without specific rituals like "Saptapadi." The court concluded that Nagalingam's marriage to Kasturi was valid under Section 7-A, emphasizing that the absence of "Saptapadi" did not invalidate the marriage. The court highlighted the recognition of the marriage as legitimate under the parties' applicable personal law.
Comentarios