Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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