Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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