Order The first accused for an offence under section 494 and the 2nd to 6th accused under section 494 read with 109, Indian Penal Code were convicted by the learned Svb-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapura m in C.C. No. 301 of 1977. All the accused had been sentenced to suffer imprisonment till raising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for the two months. 2. Against the order of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred in C. A. No. 227 of 1978 before the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai who dismissed the appeal, confirming the convictions and sentences. The present revision before me is preferred challenging the validity and legality of the order of the lower appellate Court. 3. Briefly the case against the petitioners can be stated as follows: There was intimacy for a long time between P.W. 1 Ammamuthu and the first accused Kalimuthu. This had come to the knowledge of the villagers of Keeraikotai. P.W. 1 and the first accused agreed to get themselves married and accordingly on 31st July, 1977, they married and were living together as husband and wife for about a fortnight in the first accused's house. While so. the first accused's father who lives in Malaysia wrote a letter which induced the 4th to 6th accused to take the first accused from his house, thus putting an end to the relationship between the spouses. On 19th August, 1977, at about 9-30 a.m. it is alleged, the first accused married one Boopathi in the Ammankoil at Karaikudi while his marriage with P.W. 1 Ammamuthu was still subsisting. The other accused helped in conducting the second marriage. P.W.I preferred a complaint under section 494, Indian Penal Code, against the first accused and under section 494 read with 109, Indian Penal Code, against the other accused. 4. The accused when questioned on the materials appearing on the side of the prosecution, denied having committed any offence. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapura m rejecting the defence, convicted all the accused and sentenced them as stated supra. In appeal, the learned sessions Judge, Ramnad at Madurai, confirmed the said convictions and sentences. 5. Mr. 4. The accused when questioned on the materials appearing on the side of the prosecution, denied having committed any offence. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapura m rejecting the defence, convicted all the accused and sentenced them as stated supra. In appeal, the learned sessions Judge, Ramnad at Madurai, confirmed the said convictions and sentences. 5. Mr. Venugopal Naicker learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, raised only one point before me that the marriage between P.W.1 and A-1 ha d been annulled by the learned Additional District Judge, Ramnad at Madurai, in C.M.A. No. 12 of 979 on a petition field by A-1 under section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act and hence it cannot be said that when A-1 married Boopathy, his first marriage was subsisting and no criminal liability arises under the circumstances. He relied on Exs.B-3 and B-4, the judgment and decree, on the petition filed under section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In support of his stand, he relied on two decisions: Mohana Srinivasan v. Girija1 and Baji Rao v. Tolanbai2 6. In the later decision, the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court held that a marriage in contravention of section 5 (1), Hindu Marriage Act, is null and void and it cannot create a legal status of husband and wife between the parties though the necessary ceremonies may have been through. Though section 11 gives a right to the parties to file a petition for a decree declaring the marriage annullity’ the filing of such a petition is not a condition precedent for putting an end to the marriage. What ultimately is declared as such a petition is nothing but the status of the party, a son the date of marriage and, therefore, the marriage does not continue to remain valid until a decree is passed. What is null and void cannot be deemed to be in existence for any purpose whatsoever. If, therefore, a marriage is solemnised in contravention of section 5 (1) the woman cannot get the status of a wife nor can the male get the status of husband quashed. 7. What is null and void cannot be deemed to be in existence for any purpose whatsoever. If, therefore, a marriage is solemnised in contravention of section 5 (1) the woman cannot get the status of a wife nor can the male get the status of husband quashed. 7. A marriage though null and void for contravening any of the conditions prescribed by clauses ( i), ( iv) and ( v) oft section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act has yet to be regarded a subsisting fact and in that sense it cannot be said to be wholly non-est in law or annulity as long as it is not declared to be null and void by a competent Court. In the instant case, when A-1 married Boopathi, his marriage with P.W.1 was still in subsistence and valid. The marriage between the two came to be declared as void only through Ex.D. 3 which came to be pronounced after A-1 got married to Boopathi on 19th August, 1977. The first petitioner's former marriage was not dissolved or declared to be void at the time of the ceremony of his second marriage on 19th August, 1977. It cannot be said that the ultimate declaration of void of the first marriage cannot come to the rescue of A-1 for what he had done on J9th August, 1977. When he married for the second time, he was doing an act which undoubtedly is an offence in the sense that his marriage with P.W. 1 was in subsistence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners because the marriage of P.W.1 with A-1 was declared void by Ex.D-3 which would come into effect from the date of the marriage of A. with P.W. 1. In a matter like this criminal liability cannot be allowed to fluctuate on the fortunes of parties in civil proceedings. If the contention of the learned Counsel is to be accepted then the other side might as well as some forward subsequently to contend that Ex.D-3 had been set aside and hence an offence has been made out. Such situations create credibility of law being affected. If the contention of the learned Counsel is to be accepted then the other side might as well as some forward subsequently to contend that Ex.D-3 had been set aside and hence an offence has been made out. Such situations create credibility of law being affected. It is sufficient to make out a case of criminal liability, if A-1 knew his first wife was alive and that the marriage with her had not been dissolved or annulled at the time he married Bhoopathi for the second time. I am in agreement with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The convictions of all the petitioners are correct and the sentences need no interference. 8. In the result, the convictions and sentences are confirmed and the petition stands dismissed. R.S.R. ----- Petitions dismissed.