BHAURAO SHANKAR LOKHANDE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1965 AIR 1564, 1965 SCR(2) 837

FACTS

• The appellant, Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande, married the respondent in 1956 according to religious rites.
• Lokhande contracted a second marriage with Kamlabai in February 1962 while still married to his first wife.
• The respondent filed a complaint accusing Lokhande, his brother, Kamlabai, and Kamlabai's father of bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
• Lokhande was convicted under Section 494 IPC, his brother under Section 114 IPC, while the rest were acquitted. Their appeals were dismissed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.

CONTENTIONS

• Appellant’s

The second marriage was not valid under Hindu law because it lacked the essential ceremonies of invocation before the sacred fire and Saptapadi. Therefore, it should not be considered a valid marriage for the purposes of Section 494 IPC.

• Respondent’s

The marriage between the appellant and Kamlabai was alleged to have been conducted in the 'Gandharva' form, as modified by Maharashtrian customs. The absence of essential ceremonies was not proven to be inconsistent with their community's customs.

ISSUES

1. Whether it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the alleged second marriage was performed according to religious rites and customs.
2. Whether the second marriage had to be valid under Hindu law for the offence under Section 494 IPC to be applicable.
3. Whether the appellant was guilty of bigamy.

RATIO DECIDENDI

• The court determined that the marriage between Lokhande and Kamlabai did not meet the essential requirements for a valid Hindu marriage, specifically the invocation before the sacred fire and Saptapadi. Without these ceremonies, the marriage was not considered valid under Hindu law.
• The court held that Section 494 IPC requires the second marriage to be valid. Since the second marriage did not meet the necessary criteria for validity, it was not considered a "valid marriage" in the eyes of the law.
• The court noted that according to Section 17, a marriage is deemed void if it occurs after the commencement of the Act and either party had a spouse living at the time. The second marriage did not fall within this definition because it was not validly performed.

JUDGMENT

• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment, ruling that the second marriage between Lokhande and Kamlabai was not a "solemnized marriage" under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and thus did not fall under Section 494 IPC. Consequently, the appellant and his brother were found not guilty of bigamy, and the order of acquittal was upheld.