Family Law

Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra

AIR 1965 SC 1564; (1965) 2 SCR 837

Citation: AIR 1965 SC 1564; (1965) 2 SCR 837
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 1 February 1965
Bench: J.R. Mudholkar and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.

Facts

Bhaurao was already lawfully married.
During the subsistence of his first marriage, he allegedly went through another marriage ceremony with another woman.
He was prosecuted for bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
The prosecution alleged that the second union was performed in a form described as a Gandharva marriage.
Evidence was given regarding certain acts performed at the ceremony.
However, the prosecution did not establish that all ceremonies essential under the personal law or recognised custom governing the parties had been performed.
The question was whether merely describing the event as a marriage, or proving some form of ceremony and subsequent cohabitation, was sufficient for a conviction for bigamy.

Issue

Whether a person can be convicted of bigamy when the alleged second marriage was not proved to have been solemnised through the essential ceremonies required by Hindu law.

Rule

Section 494 IPC applies only when the accused “marries” again during the lifetime of the first spouse.
For this purpose, the second marriage must be a legally valid marriage but for the subsistence of the first marriage.
Under Section 7 HMA, a Hindu marriage must be solemnised according to the customary rites and ceremonies of either party.
Where those ceremonies include saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete when the seventh step is taken.
The word “solemnise” means to celebrate the marriage with proper and legally recognised ceremonies.
Mere cohabitation, admission, exchange of garlands or a general religious event does not prove a valid second marriage unless the essential ceremonies are established.

Application

The Supreme Court distinguished between proof of a relationship and proof of a legally solemnised marriage.
Section 494 imposes criminal liability and therefore requires strict proof of every necessary element.
The prosecution had to establish:
a subsisting valid first marriage; and
a second marriage performed with ceremonies legally sufficient to create marital status.
The Court found that the evidence regarding the second ceremony was incomplete.
The witnesses did not satisfactorily prove performance of the essential Hindu ceremonies.
Nor was a valid and established custom proved under which the limited ceremony performed would itself constitute marriage.
Calling the ceremony a Gandharva marriage did not eliminate the requirement of proving how such a marriage was validly solemnised among the parties.
The parties may have intended to live as husband and wife, and society may have treated them as such, but intention and reputation could not substitute for legal solemnisation in a prosecution for bigamy.
The Court therefore held that the alleged second marriage had not been proved in the manner required by law.
Because there was no legally established second marriage, one essential component of Section 494 was missing.
The case does not suggest that a Hindu may avoid bigamy liability merely by omitting formalities deliberately.
Rather, it establishes an evidentiary rule: before criminal punishment can be imposed, the prosecution must prove that a second marriage was actually celebrated through the rites recognised by Section 7.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction.
The prosecution failed to prove that the alleged second marriage had been validly solemnised through essential ceremonies.
Mere performance of some ceremonies or subsequent cohabitation was insufficient.
Use this case for: bigamy requires strict proof of a legally solemnised second marriage and its essential ceremonies.