● Judge-Justice K.G.Balakrishnan.
FACTS-
S. Nagalingam, the appellant and Sivagami, the respondent, were married to each other on 6th September 1970. Three children were created from the marriage. Sivagami alleged that her husband, S. Nagalingam maltreated as well as tortured her on various occasions as a result of which she left his home and went to live with her parents. During this period, she got to know that her husband married another woman named Kasturi on 18th July, 1984. The ceremonies were carried out in a hall at Thiruthani. Sivagami, then filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate against her husband and six others. All accused were acquitted by the trial court. Aggrieved, she filed a Criminal Appeal NO. 67 of 1992 before the High Court of Madras. The High Court on 1st November, 1996 upheld the acquittal of six other people who were claimed guilty along with her husband. But as regards with, S. Nagalingam, the High court sent the matter back to the Trial Court and permitted the complainant to produce evidence that the marriage was solemnized. Upon that, the priest who was alleged to have performed the ceremonies was taken into custody and cross-examined. The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused in a judgment dated 4th March 1999. Unsatisfied by the same, Sivagami filed a Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 1999 before the High Court of Madras. The court held the appellant guilty of the offence of Bigamy under Section 494 of IPC. S. Nagalingam then challenged the judgment of the High Court of Madras before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
ISSUE INVOLVED-
The major issue dealt by the court in the case of S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami was, Whether the marriage entered into on 18th July, 1984 by S. Nagalingam, the appellant with the second accused Kasturi a valid marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act so as to constitute the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code as per Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
JUDGMENT -
The ingredients mentioned under Section 494 of IPC3 essential for the commission of offence are, a. The first marriage must have been contracted/ solemnized by the accused, b. While the first marriage was still subsisting, the accused contracted the second marriage, and c. Both the marriages should be valid. That means they should be solemnized with all the customs and laws applicable to the parties. It was held by the Metropolitan Magistrate that an important and essential ceremony termed “saptapadi” was not performed and hence the second marriage was invalid. The learned single judge of the High Court reversing the decision of the Magistrate held that Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act governs the parties and that according to that “saptapadi” is not an essential ceremony for a marriage to be termed valid and hence, S. Nagalingam is guilty of the offence of bigamy. As per the complaint filed by Sivagami, the marriage was contracted according to the Hindu Marriage at RCC Mandapam, Thiruthani. She also contended that the witness by the priest (PW 3) was a detailed one and that it should be taken into consideration. On the other hand, the counsel for the appellant contended that “saptapadi is an important ritual and since that was not performed; marriage cannot be termed as valid. According to Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Punishment in case of Bigamy “Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions
of sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), shall apply accordingly. Section 7-A was inserted by the State Amendment Act by the State of Tamil Nadu. It is a special provision which provides for suyamariyathai and seerthiruththa marriages. In this case, both the parties to the second marriage namely, the accused, S. Nagalingam and the second wife, Kasturi both are residents of Tamil Nadu and the marriage ceremony were performed in the same state itself. The conditions for a valid marriage under this provision are as follows: “7-A. Special provision regarding suyamariyathai and seerthiruththa marriages (1) This section shall apply to any marriage between any two Hindus, whether called suyamariyathai marriage or seerthiruththa marriage or by any other name, solemnized in the presence of relatives, friends or other persons- (a) by each party to the marriage declaring in any language understood by the parties that each takes the other to be his wife or, as the case may be, her husband; or (b) by each party to the marriage garlanding the other or putting a ring upon any finger of the other; or
(c) by the tying of the thali. (2) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, but subject to the other provisions of this Act, all marriages to which this section applies solemnized after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage (2a[Tamil Nadu] Amendment) Act, 1967, shall be good and valid in law.
CONCLUSION-
According to me this judgment was a historic judgment as it upheld the faith of many women in the judiciary whose spouse takes to second marriage without breaking ties with the first wife. In this case the apex court overcame the boundaries created by religion, customs and rituals and displayed that justice above everything. Time and again the Supreme Court has iterated that rituals and customs according to the Hindu Marriage Act are not exclusive and if there are some customs which are applicable to the parties then that will be examined by the court to secede the validity of the marriage. There are certain loopholes in the provisions of bigamy using which the parties derive benefit and the same must be looked into. Hence, there is a need for a Uniform Civil Code in cases such as that of bigamy. Rights of the second wife should be given a legal provision so as to give them a sense of security under the law.
0 Comments