Bigamy
mohit
(Querist) 15 July 2018
This query is : Open
Q.. what actions can be taken against the husband if he marries during the lifetime of his wife. ? .kindly respond as soon as possible...
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 15 July 2018
The first wife can file private criminal complaint against him in the court of the judicial magistrate u/s494 IPC. The proof of both marriage ceremonies will be required to prove the husband guilty of the offense of bigamy and that should be available with the first wife.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 15 July 2018
The affected wife can lodge complaint u/s 494 of IPC.
GO thru;
Central Government Act
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
;5, 11,17
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/590166/
The Indian Penal Code
415. Cheating
425. Mischief.
494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/
Central Government Act
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
;190,200,202
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 15 July 2018
You need to prove that 2nd marriage was valid/ performed per customs and 1st marriage was not void.
While lodging complaint proof may not be necessary but later the proof/evidence has to be adduced.
GO thru;
Supreme Court of India
K.Neelaveni vs State Rep.By Insp.Of Police & Ors on 22 March, 2010
Author: H C Prasad
Bench: D.K. Jain, C.K. Prasad
8…It has to be borne in mind that while considering the application for quashing of the charge sheet, the allegations made in the First Information Report and the materials collected during the course of the investigation are required to be considered. Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage as it is always a matter of trial. Essential ceremonies of the Marriage were gone into or not is a matter of trial.
10. It seems that accused persons approached the High Court for quashing of the charge sheet even before any order was passed by the Magistrate in terms of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In our opinion, when a report is submitted to the Magistrate he is required to be prima facie satisfied that the facts disclosed therein constitute an offence. It is trite that the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the investigating agency in the police report i.e. in the charge sheet and it is open to him after exercise of judicial discretion to take the view that facts disclosed in the report do not constitute any offence for taking cognizance.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1440610/
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 15 July 2018
Remember IT is not that easy to prove bigamy and cases fall flat.
Also pursue some Bigamy conviction judgments e.g;
Supreme Court of India
Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009
Author: . B Chauhan
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, B.S. Chauhan
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, a Government servant, got married with Smt. Minati Das (Kalita), the complainant on 5.2.1992 as per Hindu rites. Smt. Minati Das (Kalita) gave birth to a male child on 10.3.1993. However, the relationship between the husband and wife were not cordial as it was alleged by the wife that she was being tortured mentally and physically by the Appellant. She left the matrimonial home and started living with her father and was residing therein since 1993. In 1997, she came to know that the appellant got married with one Ranju Sarma on 2.2.1997 at Tukeswari Temple. Thus, she filed an FIR against the appellant.
3. The appellant was charged under Sections 498A/494 IPC by CJM, Guwahati. The appellant defended himself before the Trial Court denying all the charges. However, considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court found both the charges proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and after convicting him, for the said offences, awarded the sentences as mentioned here-in- above, vide judgment and order dated 22.12.1999. (Annexure P-12)
6. Shri S.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised all the contentions which the appellant has raised before the courts below, inter alia, that there was no valid marriage with Smt. Ranju Sarma as the marriage had taken place before a Hindu Deity and that there was no case of mental or physical torture to bring home the charges under Section 498A IPC. Thus, the appeal deserved to be allowed.
7. On the contrary, Mr. Riku Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submitted that there are concurrent finding of facts by three courts below so far as the issue of marriage of the appellant with Smt. Ranju Sarma is concerned.
9. So far as issue no. 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt. Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage.
10. It is settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. It's function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by re-appreciating the evidence. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from the facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.
12. Thus, it is evident from the above that this Court being the fourth Court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the courts below as the said courts have exercised their discretion in good faith giving due weight to relevant material and without being swayed by any irrelevant material. Even if two views are possible on the question of fact, we, being the fourth court, should not interfere even though we may exercise discretion differently had the case come before us initially.
13. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact so far as the issue of bigamy is concerned nor the quantum of punishment on this count required to be interfered with.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 15 July 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 51 of 2006 Date of Decision 9th May, 2013 ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant Versus Rajinder Kumar ….Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J.
The State is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court for acquitting the accused for offences under Section 498-A, 494 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5… He then states that he had performed the marriage of the accused according to Hindu customs, but no where states that ceremony of ‘saptapadi’ was performed.
9…….However, in S. Nagalingam ‘s case the Supreme Court holds that by virtue of the amendment under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, the ‘saptapadi’ ceremonies are not required. But there is no such amendment in the State of H.P. I do not find the evidence of ‘saptapadi’ ceremony having been proved on record and in these circumstances, the judgment of learned trial Court cannot be faulted with. I hold that even in the evidence of PW11 Vishal and PW12 Roop Rekha, who have been declared hostile, there is nothing to suggest that ceremonies necessary for solemnization of a valid marriage have been proved.
http://164.100.138.228/casest/cis/generatenew.php?path=../data/judgment/old/&fname=CR.A512006.pdf&smflag=N
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 15 July 2018
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT COURT, PUNE, AT : PUNE (Presided over by : Smt. V.V.Joshi District Judge¬13 & Additional Sessions Judge,Pune) Sessions Case no.17/2008
State of Maharashtra, ) (Yerwada Police Station, District : Pune ).... Complainant V/s. (1) Sanjay Rajaram Kusalkar,
2] Briefly stated the prosecution case as under : The prosecutrix has lodged complaint against all the accused persons alleging that accused no.1 has performed marriage with her on 2/6/2005 by concealing his first marriage with one Sheela Kusalkar and thereby he cheated her.
Write ‘bigamy proved’ and search e.g;
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=bigamy%20proved
Take help of a very able senior LOCAL counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in Family/criminal matters and well versed with latest citations, LOCAL applicable rules/laws/ … and having successful track record…. and worth his/her salt…..
Check for such counsels at LOCAL civil courts, HC, SC……
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 16 July 2018
only action under IPC is possible that too if his original wife makes a complaint.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 16 July 2018
1. Do not dictate the experts for seeking an obligation.
2. I agree with experts for initiating action against your husband through a local prudent lawyer. S/he shall advise, guide and proceed for which you need to engage him/her.
3. How you are concerned with this moot-court question, Mohit?
Guest
(Expert) 16 July 2018
Why did you marry second time?
