By Zarana Bikranta Samanta
Published On: February 04, 2022 at 12:30 IST
ABSTRACT:
The following Article is a brief overview on Section 494 (bigamy laws) of the Indian Penal Code for a layman’s understanding. This Article would give an understanding of the section along with examples of a few cases.
However, the main focus of the Article is on the recent case of Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr on which the Supreme Court recently gave its direction in 2022. An attempt to analyse any alternative scenarios. The primary question which this Article tries to answer is whether the High Court was right on stopping the criminal proceeding even after the family court had provided its findings which were sufficient to quash the case.
Introduction:
In a recent indication by the Honourable Supreme Court of India, it was held that a High Court cannot further take up a case to stop criminal proceeding even after the family court has displayed its findings. The issue in question was related to Sections 494 and Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The aforesaid mentioned sections of the IPC deal with bigamy.
The term ‘bigamy’ is stands for a situation when an already married person gets into another wedlock while the previous marriage is still in existence.
According to Section 494 of the IPC, a man or a woman cannot marry with another person if their current spouse is living and that the marriage is not yet declared void through any legal court proceeding such as a divorce.
This is a serious offence and it can lead to imprisonment which can lead up to 7 years and even a fine. It is added that if it is found that the previous marriage is dissembled from the subsequent spouse, then it is also an offence and it can lead to imprisonment for a term extending up to 10 years and he/she can also be held liable for fine.
However, there is an exception to Section 494. If in any existing marital bond, there is no information or known whereabouts about the spouse and no knowledge about whether they are dead or alive for a period of 7 years, then only the person can legally enter into another marital contract. But, it is absolutely necessary that the subsequent person is made aware of this fact before entering into a marital contract.
Further brief details on Section 494 for better understanding:
To prove that a person has violated this law, it is essential to prove the following four elements:
- The first marriage should be entered through a valid contract.
- The person must marry again for the second time after the first marriage.
- The first marriage should still be in place, i.e.; it should not be terminated by legal procedure as of date.
- The first spouse must be alive.
The nature of this offence is non-cognizable and non-bailable. The authority rests on the prosecution to prove the offence of the second marriage and that it is binding and valid. Any spouse who is aggrieved of the fact that the second marriage was contracted can file a complaint under Section 494 of the IPC.
A husband can file a complaint and in case of a wife, any close blood relation of the wife can file a complaint. To constitute the terms of the punishment, any person can be held liable of committing this offence irrespective of the religion (Hindu/Muslim/Christian) and the personal laws that their respective religions follow.
Hence, it is absolutely necessary to first lay down the ingredients which require the establishment of the Section.
Case of Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr:
The recent case of Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr (Petition filed in 2016 and Supreme Court gave its indication in 2022) was brought out by the appellant; in this case, Rehana Begum. She had moved to the court to quash the complaint registered by her husband (second respondent).
The husband had registered a complaint against his wife accusing that she had an existing marriage before marrying him to a said person called Shoukat Ali.
According to the second respondent, the wife had kept this fact concealed before the wedlock. Based upon the family court’s findings and investigation, it was held that Rehana Begum did not have an existing marriage when she married her husband on 11 January 1996.
However, a single judge bench of the Guwahati High Court further took up this case even after the family court has given its ruling. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 482 of the CrPC suggests the prevention of the inherent and discretionary powers of the High Courts. It limits the other courts on preventing abuse of justice. The High Court made an observation that the appeal was “highly disputed” regarding the previous marriage of the appellant and whether it ended in a divorce or not.
The second respondent had produced a forged document from the Sadar Kazi office regarding the divorce with the appellant. The appellant had filed a case against the second respondent on the 11th of September 2015 about the forged document which was cognizable under numerous sections of the IPC.
The complaint of the existing marriage was filed on 16th of October 2015 by the second respondent. In the family court proceeding, the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant observed that the complaint by the second respondent was a mere counter attack to the appellant’s complaint. Moreover, the second respondent had even failed to produce any relevant documents which would help to prove his side of case.
Supreme Court’s take on Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr:
It was further observed that the High Court of Guwahati in 2018 had dismissed the application for quashing the complaint filed by the appellant on grounds of not enough evidence. In 2011, the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC. This section mentions the cruelty and harassment inflicted upon a wife by the husband or any relative of the husband.
This offence can be punishable up to 3 years imprisonment and liability to pay fine. Then the scenario came in of the forged divorce certificate presented by the second respondent in 2011. This divorce was declared null and void. This clearly moved ahead and proved that the appellant did not have a prior marriage existing before marrying the second respondent.
The Supreme Court conducted its own set of proceedings headed by Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela Trivedi. It observed that the refusal of the High Court of Guwahati to accept that the wife did not have a prior existing marriage showed distrust between the courts and it was kind of insulting to the family court of Kamrup.
When the family court clearly found that there was no previous marriage in question and that the divorce certificate was fake, then the High Court shouldn’t have interfered and stopped a legal criminal proceeding as it was an exploitation of the existing system of running of the courts. The High Court had refused to carry on the criminal complaint as they found the issue highly controversial filled with loopholes.
Hence, the Supreme Court allowed for the quashing of the complaint and undoing of the impugned judgement of the Guwahati High Court. Even the pending complaint in the Kamrup family court was quashed. The justices allowed Rehana Begum’s appeal.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court was very apt and accurate in holding that the High Court should not have prevented the criminal proceeding of such an important matter even after all the evidence and findings were presented by the family court. This showed lack of trust between the inter-court’s jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it is important to take note of this incident and analyse the alternative situations which could have arisen in similar cases. For example, the wife could have indeed been married and then filed for a divorce in way of an ex-parte decree. Ex-parte decree means an action which is carried out in favour or interest of one side of party only.
This can be perfectly observed in the case of Krishna Gopal Divedi vs Prabha Divedi. Krishna Gopal (appellant) had filed an ex-parte decree for divorcing his wife. After the technicalities, he married another lady in nearly 3 years of the ex-parte decree (The decree was filed in 1990 and the second marriage took place in 1993).
Ms. Prabha moved the Allahabad High Court saying that she was not at all aware of the ex-parte decree brought about by her husband or the proceedings which took place, hence she was successful in setting aside the decree by 1994. Hence, there was no decree in place from 1994 and their marriage continued.
In 1995, Prabha Divedi moved to court accusing her husband under Section 494 of the IPC. The appellant resorted to the argument that during the date of the second marriage in 1993, the ex-parte decree was still in place and hence it cannot be an offence.
Hence, this matter was said to be useless and futile and dismissed. The court allowed this appeal and quashed the criminal proceeding filed by the first wife Ms. Prabha Divedi.
Conclusion:
Hence, the court in authority can quash a complain based on the lower court’s findings and it was a bit unjustified on the part of Guwahati High Court to pause the criminal proceeding to investigate further and refuse the appeal of the appellant.
Author- Zarana Bikranta Samanta is First-year student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, India