Judgment This is an appeal against the order of acquittal in C.C.No.1628 of 1980, on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi. 2. A complaint was filed by the wife against her husband A-1, for having married A-2, A-3 and A-4, parents of A-1, A-5 brother of A-1, A-6, sister-in-law of A-1 (wife of A-5); A-7 and A-8, parents of maternal uncle of A-1 (brother of A-4) were also arrayed as accused for having abetted an offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, after the review of the entire evidence did not come to any conclusive finding. However, it appears that the trial Court acquitted the, accused on the ground that, even if the marriage ceremonies were performed, it would not amount to a valid marriage. It is this point which is assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has misdirected itself completely in this matter in holding that in all cases there should be ritual ceremonies as prescribed in the Hindu texts, viz., the performance of homam and sapthapadi. 4. Section 494, Indian Penal Code, provides that if a person having a spouse living marries again he would become liable to punishment. Obviously, the word ‘marries’ in the section means some form of marriage known to or recognised by law. The section does not refer to any valid marriage because obviously a second marriage cannot be valid in the case of Hindus. The marriage may also not be valid on account of some legal impediment to the validity of the marriage, such as consanguinity, age, etc. But what the law requires is that the second marriage has been performed in a form recognised by law. As far as Hindus are concerned, formerly, as per section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. But what the law requires is that the second marriage has been performed in a form recognised by law. As far as Hindus are concerned, formerly, as per section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. This Act has been amended by the Hindu Marriage Madras (Amendment) Act, (21 of 1967), in which the marriage solemnised in the presence of relatives or other persons is also recognised provided it is performed in the following manner: (a) by each party to the marriage declaring in any language understood by the parties that each takes the other to be his wife or as the case may be, her husband; or (b) by each party to the marriage garlanding the other or putting a ring upon any finger of the other; or (c) by the tying of thali. Therefore, there are on the one side customary rites and ceremonies and on the other, any of the formalities provided in the Hindu Marriage Madras Amendment Act 21 of 1967, both constituting valid forms of marriage. 5. It appears that before the trial Court five decisions have been quoted. One of such decisions is that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Kapila Venkata Laxmi v. Kapila Paronthanarayana, (1969) Crl.L.J. 836. That decision relates to a case in Andhra Pradesh where there is no Amendment Act as the one in Madras and hence the decision cannot be of any use for deciding the present case. Another case cited is Kunchithapatham v. Thereka Sundari, (1969) M.W.N.124: (1969) L.W. (Crl.) 257. In that case also the Madras Amendment Act 21 of 1967 has not been taken into account and that decision, which is no longer good law, has been superseded by another decision of this Court in Koodappan v. Kothai alias Kothai Nachiarammal, (1979) L.W. (Crl.) 154, in which case after analysing the effect of the Madras Amendment Act, 21 of 1967, it was held that the tying of tali around the neck of the spouse or the exchange of garlands would be sufficient to constitute a valid marriage. The last decision on which very much reliance was placed by the trial Court is also one emanating from this Court in Annamalai Vanniar and others v. Palaniammal and another, (1980) T.L.N.J. 221. The last decision on which very much reliance was placed by the trial Court is also one emanating from this Court in Annamalai Vanniar and others v. Palaniammal and another, (1980) T.L.N.J. 221. In that case, the complainant stated that the marriage was as per the “jathimurai”. The Court held that it would imply that the marriage was conducted in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs which include sapthapadi. It was further held that once the prosecution comes forward with a case that the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent has taken place under the ‘Jathimurai’, it is for the complainant to prove that all the Hindu rites, as contemplated under section 7 of the Central Act 25 of 1958, have taken place. Therefore, that decision would refer only to the form of marriage contemplated in the Central Act 25 of 1965, and would apply to cases where it is alleged that the marriage has taken place according to the provisions of section 7 of that Act, i.e., to say in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies. But it is open now to the spouses to marry under the Hindu Marriage Act in a form different from the one prescribed by customary rites. In the present case, it is not alleged in the complaint that the marriage took place in the customary form. The complaint only mentions that the complainant came to the conclusion that her husband has married A-2 when she found A-2 wearing thali. Further no purohit was examined as in the case decided in Annamalai Vanniar and others v. Palaniammal and another, (1980) T.L.N.J. 221. Therefore, except in where it is specifically alleged by the complainant that the marriage took place according to the customary rites, it is open to the parties to prove that the marriage took place in any of the three other forms prescribed by the Madras Amendment Act 21 of 1967, as held in Koodappan v. Kothai alias Kothai Nachiarammal, (1979) L.W. (Crl.) 154, which still is good law. 6. The trial Court having disposed of the case mainly on this question of law, referred to above, has not given a definite finding as regards the facts of the case. In some places the Court says that it has reasons to doubt the veracity of the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 6. The trial Court having disposed of the case mainly on this question of law, referred to above, has not given a definite finding as regards the facts of the case. In some places the Court says that it has reasons to doubt the veracity of the testimony of the eye-witnesses. In some other place it says it is proved that there was exchange of garlands and tying of thali. Such being the situation, I think it is proper that the matter is remanded for the purpose of clear finding on the question of facts. 7. Similarly, regarding abettors, after holding rightly that the mere presence would not constitute abetment, the trial Court does not come forward to say that the evidence discloses only mere presence and not any other positive acts. A perusal of the evidence would disclose that in respect of some of the accused at least, there were positive acts towards the ceremonies of the marriage. Regarding this offence of abetment also it appears that proper findings have not been given by the Court below. Further, it is to be noted that in the charge, A-2 has been charged under section 494, Indian Penal Code. This is obviously wrong. She, being the alleged second wife, can be only one of the abettors. Therefore, the charge has to be modified. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.