Delhi High Court: The petitions were filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to set aside an order dated 21–01–2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide which the summoning order dated 30-08-2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., upholds the summoning order observing that the mere inability of one partner, either a wife or a husband, to prove the performance of ‘saptapadi’ in the second marriage at the summoning stage should not be misused as a loophole to evade legal consequences.
A complaint was filed by the petitioner against the accused persons i.e. estranged husband (accused 1) mother of accused 1 (accused 2), father of accused 1 (accused 3) and alleged second wife of accused 1 (accused 4). The complainant alleged that the accused husband married her, lived at her matrimonial home for many years and built his career business and financial standing by utilizing the resources of the complainant’s father but eventually left the matrimonial home and abandoned her. Thereafter, accused 1 and 4 got married in the presence of local pundits and had a daughter from wedlock. It is stated that the neighbours and the security guards acknowledge them as a married couple and the birth certificate of their daughter names accused 1 as the father.
A complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for the offence of bigamy and a summon order was issued by the Magistrate which was later set aside by Sessions Court noting that for the offence of Section 494 IPC, proof of solemnization of second marriage in accordance with essential religious rites for the offence of section 494 IPC, proof of solemnization of second marriage in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to parties is sine qua non. Thus, in the instant case, there is no iota of oral or documentary evidence led by the complainant regarding the performance of ceremonies like ‘Saptpadi’ around the sacred fire, which is essential and mandatory as per the requirement of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the performance of a Hindu marriage.
The Court noted that the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the present case is at the stage of summoning of accused, and not at the final stage after trial when the Court has to ultimately consider whether the complainant has been able to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt which would include proof of performance of essential ceremonies while solemnizing the second marriage. At the stage of summoning an accused, it is crucial to refrain from prematurely adjudging the entire case with a sense of finality. Adjudicating and appreciating all the facts and circumstances, in their finality, at the summoning stage would be a deviation from the procedural intent of CrPC under Sections 200- 204, as it could prematurely pre-determine the outcome of a case, without a comprehensive and conclusive examination of facts during course of trial where both parties have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence in a more detailed and structured manner.
The Court further noted that the complexity of issues such as the validity of marriage and performance of rituals should be reserved for comprehensive scrutiny during the trial proceedings, where evidence can be presented, cross-examined, and evaluated in a more elaborate manner. Restricting the opportunity to prove one’s case during trial, by not summoning the accused when a prima facie case is made out in the face of evidence produced before the Court, would be contrary to the principles of justice that underpin our legal system. In essence, the absence of law making adultery an offence cannot provide individuals with a blanket immunity, in a sense that they can marry other persons in secrecy during subsistence of their first marriage, and then argue that the first partner must prove that such second marriage was solemnized after performing essential rites and ceremonies, even for summoning such an accused for the offence of bigamy, and since adultery no longer remains an offence, such a partner would remain immune from any legal consequences. Thus, in such a situation, the Courts cannot afford to leave individuals without a legal remedy, especially those wives or husbands, whose partners have entered another marriage.
The Court observed that Section 494 of IPC reflects a legislative intent grounded in the protection of the institution of marriage within the dynamic framework of contemporary society. Bigamy i.e. getting married to another person while being legally married to one, is a serious prohibited behaviour. In acknowledging the evolving perspectives on relationships in contemporary society, it is undeniable that a significant number of individuals no longer prioritize or hold in high regard the institution of marriage. The preference for live-in relationships, which is legally permissible in our country, is reflective of these changing societal norms. While recognizing and respecting the legal standing of live–in relationships and the individuals who opt for this lifestyle, it is crucial to strike a balance that ensures legal protection for those who have committed to the sanctity and values of marriage.
The Court further observed that as societies evolve, the legal landscape surrounding matrimonial laws has undergone changes reflected in various court judgments. While these legal developments have addressed certain loopholes in the law, they may, however, inadvertently permit the prohibited conduct of bigamy. The gravity of the offense of bigamy, which mandates the solemnization of a previous valid marriage and the conduct of a spouse to get married to another person during the lifetime and existence of the first valid marriage, is both dangerous for society and for the victim spouse. Preserving the sanctity of monogamy does not negate the possibility of evolving legal interpretations or adapting to changing societal norms. However, any reform must be approached cautiously to ensure that it aligns with the foundational principles of Hindu Law and does not inadvertently compromise the essence of monogamous unions.
Thus, the Court remarked that at this stage, to burden the complainant, who is the victim’s wife, would amount to encumbering her unfairly with the duty of proving the second marriage of her husband which was allegedly a clandestine marriage of which she had been able to procure one photograph with great difficulty. Therefore, to insist that all the ceremonies of marriage, as performed for the purpose of a valid marriage, must be proved for purpose of even summoning the accused for offence of bigamy will put the first wife into a situation where though she knows that her husband is living with another woman after performing some kind of marriage ceremony, and are living and projecting themselves as husband and wife, but still she can take no action against him since one of the ceremonies of marriage could not be proved by her.
The Court concluded that the inability of one partner to prove the performance of ‘saptapadi’ by the other partner while marrying for the second time during the subsistence of the first marriage, at the stage of summoning itself, especially when the other partner may have solemnized such marriage with the third person in secrecy, should not be exploited as a clever tactic to circumvent the legal consequences of committing offence of bigamy.
[Pooja Sharma Bajaj v Kunal Bajaj, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 38, decided on 03-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Prateek Avasthi and Ms. Purva Dua, Advocates along with petitioner
Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Mr. Ravi Pathak, Mr. Akhilesh Tallur, Mr. Simarpal Singh Sawhney, Mr. Joy Banerjee and Mr. Siddhant Juyal, Advocates for respondent 1 to 4.
