-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
The Allahabad High Court today quashed the summoning order against Nisha under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning charges of bigamy, citing a lack of evidence on the solemnization of a valid second marriage. The decision, rendered by Hon’ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J., in the case of Shubham Sharma vs. Nisha, stressed the necessity of proper ceremonial conduct to establish the legality of a marriage under Hindu rites, which was not satisfied in this instance.
The court highlighted that for an offence under Section 494 IPC to stand, the second marriage must be proven to have been solemnized validly during the subsistence of the first marriage. The court noted, “The ‘Saptapadi’ ceremony under the Hindu Law is one of the essential ingredients to constitute a valid marriage but the said evidence is lacking in the present case.”
The revisionist, Nisha, was accused of entering a second marriage without dissolving her first marriage with Vijay Singh legally. However, it was contended that Nisha had already obtained a divorce decree before the alleged second marriage. The main issue arose around the authenticity and legality of the second marriage, which according to the complaints, lacked the necessary Hindu rites, particularly the ‘Saptapadi’ or the taking of seven steps, which is crucial for a marriage to be recognized under Hindu customs.
Validity of Marriage Ceremonies: The court observed that there was no substantial evidence to indicate that the second marriage was conducted following Hindu rituals that would make it valid under the law.
Absence of ‘Saptapadi’ Ceremony: Justice Chowdhary noted, “Unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it cannot be said to be ‘solemnized’.”
Quashing of Proceedings: Referencing several apex court precedents, the judgment emphasized the importance of not allowing the court’s process to be used for oblique purposes. The court found that the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 494 IPC were based on untenable complaints and lacked the prima facie merit required for continuation.
Decision of Judgement The court consequently quashed the summoning order concerning the offence under Section 494 IPC but allowed the criminal proceedings related to other charges under Sections 504 and 506 IPC to continue. This decision underscores the court’s approach in scrutinizing the fundamental elements of the alleged offences before allowing the prosecution to proceed.
Date of Decision : 25th April 2024
Shubham Sharma vs. Nisha
