# P. Parmeshwara Rao, T v. S. N. Chari and R. Nagarathn11111 for

- **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1019
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1975
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-parmeshwara-rao-t-v-s-n-chari-and-r-nagarathn11111-for-7558
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

•
LlNGARI OBULAMMA
v •
L. VENKATA REDDY & ORS .
.Tan1tary 19, 1979
.[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSllAL, JJ.J
1(119
Penal l'ode-S. 494-Scope of-Essential co11ditio11s to be Sl1tiJfied for
application of the section.
1 he appellant waK the husbaJ!d of respondent No. 1. Relations between the
husband and wife ht;wing been strained for some years they lived separately.
On the husband's complaint that his wife had married another person during
the subsistence of their n1arriage, she and accused no. 4 were convicted under
s. 494 !PC.
Allowing the wife's revision petition the High Court held the marriage to
¥
be void on lhe ground that there was no evidence to prove that the essential
ceremonies required to be performed in a Hindu marriage, namely Dutta Homa
and Saptapa<li had been performed.
In apptal to this Court the husband contended that under
the
custom
followed by the community to which the parties belonged Saptapadi was not
an essential requiren1ent to constitute a valid rr11..1rrriage but that tying a yarn
thread round th~ bride's neck at the time of marrir~ge wi.;s sufficient to make
a va1id n1arriage Und this having been done, the second marriage was va1id
and the wife \Vas guilty of the offence under s. 494 lPC.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD : The prosecution failed to prove that the second n1arriage was a
valid marriage and, therefore, the High Court was justified in tacquitting the
respondents. [1022 F]
Before a conviction can be recorded under s. 494 IPC the following ingre~
clients must be satisfied :-
(1) that the cornplainant had been married to the accused;
(2) that the accused contracted a socond
marri~.ge
while
the
first
marriage was still subsisting; and
(3) that both the marriages were va1id and strictly according to law
governing the parties. [1022 BJ
In the instant case th'ere wa& no evidence to show that
there
was
any
custom among the parties out weighing the .written text of Jaw.
Secondly, the
husband had not clearly mentioned that the parties were governed by custom
m ~erogation of Hindu Law. The priest who performed the
marriage
b~d
shO\vn co1nplete ignorance as tO whether or not the parties were governed by
custom. The witness was, therefore, incompetent to depcse about the exist·
cnce of any custom in the family of the parties.
When the priest said that
there .was no custom of .sacred fire and Saptapadi what he meant MlS that in
the ~econd inarriage these two coremonies had not he.en performed. [102·2 C·D &:
IQ21 0-HJ
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•I0.20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C. R.
·A
£11 rr: (Jo/go111i Ragliava Reddy & Anr., AIR 1968 (AP) 117 held inappliB
c
D
E
F
G
H
cable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUR!Sl)JCT!ON : Criminal Appeal No. 339
of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
19-3-1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision
Case No. 16/74 (Criminal Revision Petition No. 12/74).
P. Parmeshwara Rao, T. V. S. N. Chari and R. Nagarathn11111 for
the Appellant.
·
A. V. V. Nair for the Respondent.

## Text

•
LlNGARI OBULAMMA
v •
L. VENKATA REDDY & ORS .
.Tan1tary 19, 1979
.[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSllAL, JJ.J
1(119
Penal l'ode-S. 494-Scope of-Essential co11ditio11s to be Sl1tiJfied for
application of the section.
1 he appellant waK the husbaJ!d of respondent No. 1. Relations between the
husband and wife ht;wing been strained for some years they lived separately.
On the husband's complaint that his wife had married another person during
the subsistence of their n1arriage, she and accused no. 4 were convicted under
s. 494 !PC.
Allowing the wife's revision petition the High Court held the marriage to
¥
be void on lhe ground that there was no evidence to prove that the essential
ceremonies required to be performed in a Hindu marriage, namely Dutta Homa
and Saptapa<li had been performed.
In apptal to this Court the husband contended that under
the
custom
followed by the community to which the parties belonged Saptapadi was not
an essential requiren1ent to constitute a valid rr11..1rrriage but that tying a yarn
thread round th~ bride's neck at the time of marrir~ge wi.;s sufficient to make
a va1id n1arriage Und this having been done, the second marriage was va1id
and the wife \Vas guilty of the offence under s. 494 lPC.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD : The prosecution failed to prove that the second n1arriage was a
valid marriage and, therefore, the High Court was justified in tacquitting the
respondents. [1022 F]
Before a conviction can be recorded under s. 494 IPC the following ingre~
clients must be satisfied :-
(1) that the cornplainant had been married to the accused;
(2) that the accused contracted a socond
marri~.ge
while
the
first
marriage was still subsisting; and
(3) that both the marriages were va1id and strictly according to law
governing the parties. [1022 BJ
In the instant case th'ere wa& no evidence to show that
there
was
any
custom among the parties out weighing the .written text of Jaw.
Secondly, the
husband had not clearly mentioned that the parties were governed by custom
m ~erogation of Hindu Law. The priest who performed the
marriage
b~d
shO\vn co1nplete ignorance as tO whether or not the parties were governed by
custom. The witness was, therefore, incompetent to depcse about the exist·
cnce of any custom in the family of the parties.
When the priest said that
there .was no custom of .sacred fire and Saptapadi what he meant MlS that in
the ~econd inarriage these two coremonies had not he.en performed. [102·2 C·D &:
IQ21 0-HJ
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•I0.20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C. R.
·A
£11 rr: (Jo/go111i Ragliava Reddy & Anr., AIR 1968 (AP) 117 held inappliB
c
D
E
F
G
H
cable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUR!Sl)JCT!ON : Criminal Appeal No. 339
of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
19-3-1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision
Case No. 16/74 (Criminal Revision Petition No. 12/74).
P. Parmeshwara Rao, T. V. S. N. Chari and R. Nagarathn11111 for
the Appellant.
·
A. V. V. Nair for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J.
This appeal by special leave has been filed by lhe
complainant against the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
acquitting the respondents, who had been convicted by
the trial
court Magistrate and the Sessions Judge under Section 494 I. P. C.
{!nd sentenced to six months· rigorous imprisonment and a fine
of
Rs. 100/- as modified by the Sessions Judge.
The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent No. 1
on the ground that he was her husband and while the first marriage
was subsisting he had contracted a second marriage and was, therefore, guilty of the offence of bigamy as enshrined in Section 494 of
.I. P. C.
According to the prosecution the first marriage of respondent No. 1 with appellant took place on 22-4-68.
After
about 3
years of the first marriage the relations between the husband and
wife became strained and they separated, but there was no divorce.
On 1-4-1972 the respondent No. 1 married accused No. 4 and the
other accused who were relations of the respondent participated in
the marriage.
On knowing this fact the appellant filed a complaint
on 26-4-1972 on the basis of which the respondents were prosecuted
and ultimately convicted under Section 494 of J. P. C.
The case
went up in revision to the High Court which accepted the revision
and acquitted the accused on the ground that there. was no proof of
a. valid marriage having been contracted between accused No. 4 and
accused No. 1.
Against this order the appellant filed a petition for
special leave and after obtaining special leave, the appeal has beeri
placed before us for hearing.
Tbe short point involved in this appeal is as to whether or not
the second marriage contracted by respondent No. 1 (A-l) with respondent No. 4(A-4) was a legally valid marriage.
The High Court
pointe-0 out that under the Hindu Law, two essential ceremonies of ·
•
'
(
•
•
•
;
UNGAR! OBULAMMA v. VENKATA REDDY (fazal Ali, J.)
102;1
a valid marriage arc Datta Homa and Saptapadi i.e. taking seven
stqis around the sacred fire.
The High Court found that there. was
absolutely no evidence to prove that any of these two essential ceremonies had been performed, and, therefore, the marriage was void in
the eye of law.
In this view of the matter the High Conrt held that
the conviction under Section 494 I. P. C. could not be sustained .
.A
B
In support of the appeal Mr. Rao has submitted that the High
Court has taken a wrong view of law and has overlooked the fact
that in the instant case, the parties belonged to the Reddy Community
and were therefore governed by custom and under the custom the
two ceremonies mentioned by the High Court were not necessary at
G
all to constitute a valid marriage.
The other ceremonies which were
necessary under the custom had been performed according to Purohit
(P.W.l).
Unfortunately, however, in the state of evidence in the
present case it is impossible for us to hold that the second marriage
. was a valid one.
In the first place it has not been clearly mentioned
0
in the complaint as to whether the parties were governed by custom
in derogation of Hindu Law.
Secondly, P.W. l stated thus :-
"Among Kapus, according to their customs each community will perform the marriage. Some Kapus have only
'Yarn Thread' instead of Mangala Sutram.
I do not know
what is the custom (Acharam) of the accused.
There was
no custom of putting sacred fire.
There was
no
'Agni
Gundam' (Sacred fire and no going round 7 times by the
bride and bridegroom).
I do not know whether that is
true Of a secret marriage'_'.
It would appear from the aforesaid statement of P.W. 1 that he
had clearly stated that he does not know what is the custom of the
accused.
Ha,ving shown complete ignorance of the fact as to whether
or not the accused was governed by custom the witness goes on to
state that there was no custom of sacred fire and Saptapadi.
What
the witness really means is that in the second marriage which
was
contracted by respondent No. 1, these two ceremonies were not performed by him. Mr. Rao, however, vehemently contended that this
witness proves that in the Reddy Community the custom of Saptapadi
was not prevalent and it was sufficient to put the
'Yam Thread'
instead of Mangal Sutril'. In our opinion when witness has frankly
admitted that he does not know the custom of the accused he was
incompetent to depose about the existence of any custom in the family
E
F
G
II
1022
SUPREMl!COURT·Rl!PORTS
l.19'79J 2 S.C;R.
. A
of the accused.
It is well settled that before a conviction can be recorded under section 494 the following ingredients must be proved :-
B
.c
D
E
F
( 1) That the
complainant
had been
married to the
accused ;
(2) That the accused contracted a second marriage while
the first marriage was still subsisting ;
( 3) That both the marri~ges were valid
and strictly
according to law governing the parties.
In the instant case there was no evidence to show that tl1ere was
any custom amongst the Reddys which, outweighed the written text
of law. The evidence of P. W. 1, clearly falls short of the standard
to prove this fact.
Mr. Rao, however, strongly relied on a decision
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in some other case to show that
among the Reddy Community oE Telangana area the two ceremonies
mentioned above were not necessary.
In the first place the decision
referred to above in the ca•e of re: Dolgonti Raghava Reddy and
Another(') clearly shows that the Court in that case was concerned
only with the Reddy Community of
Telangana alone.
The trial
cour: has pointed out in its judgment that so far as accused is concerned he belongs to the Reddy Community not of Tclangana area,
but that of Rayalaseema area.
In these circumstances the Judgment
of the High Court cannot be of any avail to the appellant.
Moreover,
as the existence of the custom was neither mentioned in the complaint
nor proved in the evidence it would be difficult for this Court to rely
on the decision of the High Court which was based on the evidence,
facts and circumstances of the case before it.
In these circum11tances
we agree with the High Court that the prosecution bad failed to prove
that the second marriage contracted by respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 4 was a valid marriage and, therefore, the High Court
was fully justified in acquitting the respondents.
The UP.peal is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed.
P.B.R.
Appeal dismissed.
(I) A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 117
•
I
I.
'
•
,.