Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

If Marriage is Not Valid, It is No Marriage in the Eyes of Law – Allahabad High Court Quashes Bigamy Charges Due to Lack of Valid Solemnization

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling on April 25, 2024, underscored the necessity of valid solemnization in marriage ceremonies under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to the quashing of bigamy charges against Nisha, the revisionist.

Legal Point of Judgement: The court meticulously analyzed the essential requirements for a valid marriage, particularly focusing on the absence of the ‘Saptapadi’ (seven steps ritual), which is crucial under the Hindu Marriage Act. Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary emphasized, “If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage in the eyes of law.”

Facts and Issues: The revisionist, Nisha, was summoned for allegedly marrying Shubham Sharma without obtaining a divorce from her first husband, Vijay Singh. However, she contested the validity of her second marriage and the performance of essential rites. The prosecution’s inability to prove the solemnization of the second marriage formed the core issue of the legal battle.

Validity of Second Marriage: The court noted that no substantial evidence was presented to prove the performance of ‘Saptapadi’, a mandatory ritual for validating a Hindu marriage. Justice Chowdhary pointed out, “the word ‘solemnize’ means, in connection with a marriage, ‘to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form.’”

Application of Legal Precedents: The judgment extensively referenced past Supreme Court rulings that allow for the quashing of proceedings where the probability of conviction is minimal or where the proceedings seem malafide. The court emphasized preventing the misuse of legal processes and ensuring justice.

Decision on Delay Condonation: The court also condoned a 275-day delay in filing the criminal revision, acknowledging the affidavit submitted and mutual consent of the involved parties.

Decision: Concluding, the court quashed the summoning order related to the bigamy charges under Section 494 IPC against Nisha due to the absence of evidence proving valid marriage solemnization. However, proceedings related to other charges under Sections 504 and 506 IPC will continue.

Date of Decision: April 25, 2024

Shubham Sharma Vs. Nisha

Latest Legal News