Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 359 (MP)

Arjundas Aswani @ Ajju v. Madhuri

2013-03-15

TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL

body2013
JUDGMENT : Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J. Present petition has been preferred by accused husband seeking relief of quashment of complaint case No. 1427/2006 pending in the Court of JMFC, Satna u/s 494, IPC initiated on the basis of complaint of respondent/wife. According to contents of present petition and complaint dated 2.3.2006 (Annexure A-4) filed by the respondent/wife in the Court of JMFC, facts of the case, in short, are that 11 years prior to the date of complaint Arjundas (petitioner) and Madhuri (respondent) married to each other. After marriage, for about 5-6 years, they lived together and begotten a baby child. On 15.7.2002, petitioner filed a divorce petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. Vide order dated 5.11.2003 (Annexure A-2) in Miscellaneous Case No. 34A/2002 Family Court, Rewa dissolved the marriage and granted divorce to the petitioner. 2. On the basis of report of respondent/wife a criminal case u/s 498A, IPC was registered against the petitioner. Vide judgment dated 31.8.2004 passed by JMFC, Satna in Criminal Case No. 670/2003, petitioner was convicted u/s 498A, IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. However, vide judgment dated 6.10.2004 (Annexure A-I) of First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna passed in Criminal Appeal No. 152/2004, conviction and sentence of petitioner was set aside and petitioner was acquitted of the charges. 3. In aforesaid background, respondent preferred complaint stating that decree of divorce sought by the petitioner is under challenge in first appeal in the High Court even then on 19.1.2006 petitioner married with one lady Ranjana Bai and committed offence of bigamy u/s 494, IPC. 4. Trial Court after considering the statements recorded on 3.3.2006 of respondent u/s 200, Cr.P.C. and u/s 202, Cr.P.C. of Shanti Bai (PW-2) and Baldev Kumar (PW-3), vide order dated 6.5.2006 took cognizance of the case u/s 494, IPC and issued process against the petitioner. 5. At the outset it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that vide judgment dated 3.4.2007 in First Appeal No. 603/2003, this Court has dismissed appeal filed by the respondent, hence, decree of divorce now has attained finality in all respect for all purposes. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that according to Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act, when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and affirmed by Appellate Court, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that according to Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act, when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and affirmed by Appellate Court, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Smt. Lila Gupta Vs. Laxmi Narain and others, AIR 1978 SC 1351 , submits that for the sake of argument even if it is assumed that second marriage was contracted in contravention and violation of Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act then also alleged second marriage would not render void. Accordingly, in such a situation second marriage will not constitute an offence u/s 494, IPC. 7. Admittedly, husband remarried a lady after proceeding for obtaining divorce decree from Family Court. Complaint has been filed by respondent and entertained by the Trial Court during pendency of Appeal against aforesaid decree of divorce in the High Court. In view of the order dated 3.4.2007 of this Court, decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner has become absolute. Meaning thereby that husband preferred a divorce petition on 15.7.2002, which was decreed by the Family Court on 5.11.2003 and was affirmed by the High Court on 3.4.2007. Ground for divorce and then decree of divorce is prevailing during aforesaid entire period. 8. If legally divorced husband agrees for marriage with another lady, cannot be said to be an offence u/s 494, IPC any more. In such a situation, continuation of criminal proceedings u/s 494, IPC against the petitioner would be nothing but a abuse of process of law, leading towards no purposeful result for either of the parties. Criminal proceedings pending in the Court of JMFC, Satna u/s 494, IPC in complaint case No. 1427/2006 initiated on the basis of complaint of respondent/wife is hereby quashed. Petition is allowed as indicated above.