Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra

Facts

The accused, already married to Indubai, went through a 'gandharva' ceremony with Kamlabai in 1962 during Indubai's lifetime and was convicted of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. The ceremony involved garlanding and touching foreheads, but neither invocation before the sacred fire nor saptapadi was performed. No evidence established a community custom abrogating those essential ceremonies.

Issues

• Whether a second marriage must be validly 'solemnized' with the essential/customary ceremonies to attract Section 17 HMA and Section 494 IPC
• Whether the gandharva ceremony performed amounted to a solemnized marriage

Arguments

The accused argued the essential ceremonies for a valid marriage were never performed, so there was no 'solemnized' marriage attracting Section 17/Section 494. The State argued the ceremony accorded with community gandharva custom and that the second marriage need not even be valid for Section 494 to apply.

Held

The Court held that 'whoever marries' in Section 494 means whoever validly marries, and a marriage is void under Section 17 HMA only if 'solemnized' — i.e. celebrated with proper ceremonies in due form. The two essential ceremonies (invocation before the sacred fire and saptapadi) were admittedly not performed, and no custom abrogating them was proved. Hence the second 'marriage' was not solemnized, did not fall within Section 17, and Section 494 was not attracted. The convictions were set aside.

Ratio decidendi

For a Hindu marriage to be valid (and a second marriage void under Section 17 so as to attract Section 494 IPC), it must be 'solemnized' with the essential ceremonies of Section 7 — saptapadi and invocation before the sacred fire — or the ceremonies recognised by a proved valid custom.

Significance

Leading authority on what constitutes a validly solemnized Hindu marriage under Section 7 and on the requirement of essential ceremonies for bigamy prosecutions; consistently followed (e.g. Kanwal Ram, S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami) and central to the difficulty of securing bigamy convictions for want of proof of ceremonies.

Related