Ambika bhardwaj
Published On: January 27, 2022 at 17:24 IST
The Supreme Court recently stated in the Case of Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr that a High Court’s decision to permit a Criminal Proceeding to move ahead for Offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with Bigamy, even after the Family Court’s finding that the wife did not have a subsisting previous marriage, would be an abuse of the procedure.
The observation was made in light of the facts of the present Case in which the Appellant-wife and her husband, who is the second respondent, were both parties to the ruling of the Family Court.
An observation was made by a Bench which comprised of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela Trivedi in an Appeal that was questioning an Order of Guwahati High Court about rejecting wife’s application seeking quashing of a Complaint lodged against her by her husband for Offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code addresses the Offence of remarrying during the life-time of an existing partner, while Section 495 addresses the Offence of concealing the former marriage from the person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted.
The Bench observed that the Family Court’s Ruling clearly indicates the following-
“Whether the Appellant had a prior subsisting marriage with another person and the second Respondent had obtained a valid divorce.”
The conclusion was that the Appellant did not have a subsisting marriage when she married him.
The Bench mentioned that when the Family Court’s Order was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench rejected the Appeal for Non-Prosecution, implying that the Family Court’s order continues to hold the field.
Nonetheless, the impugned Judgement held that the factum of the Appellant’s subsisting marriage is a controversial issue and refused to dismiss the Criminal Complaint.
The Court granted the wife’s Appeal, overturning the impugned Judgement and Order of the Guwahati High Court, and further permitted the Appellant’s Plea for Quashing the Complaint.