Bhaurao Lokhande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

The case of Bhaurao Lokhande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra is a landmark decision that clarified the scope of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS))and the necessity of valid solemnization under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). 

The Supreme Court examined whether a second marriage performed without the essential rites and ceremonies required under Section 7 of the HMA could be considered valid, thereby attracting criminal liability under Section 494 IPC.

Background of Bhaurao Lokhande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

The appellant, Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande, was married to Indubai in 1956 through proper Hindu rites and ceremonies. During the subsistence of this marriage, he contracted another marriage with Kamlabai in February 1962. Following this, he was prosecuted and convicted under Section 494 IPC for the offence of bigamy, which penalises a person who marries again during the lifetime of a spouse.

The Sessions Court and High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the second marriage was sufficient to constitute the offence. Dissatisfied with these findings, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India, contending that the second marriage had not been performed in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies prescribed by law, and therefore, it could not be treated as a valid marriage for the purpose of Section 494 IPC.

The State argued that the marriage was performed according to the customary Gandharva form of marriage, which was recognised among the parties, and that the appellant was therefore liable for the offence of bigamy.

Issues

1. Whether the second marriage of Bhaurao Lokhande with Kamlabai was solemnized according to the requisite customary rites and ceremonies under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Whether, in the absence of such solemnization, the appellant could still be held liable for bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Relevant Provisions

• Section 5, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Lays down the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage, including the requirement that neither party should have a living spouse at the time of the marriage.
• Section 7, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Specifies that a Hindu marriage must be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party. Where such rites include the saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete upon the seventh step taken by the couple before the sacred fire.
• Section 17, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Declares any marriage between two Hindus void if either party has a living spouse at the time of marriage and makes Sections 494 and 495 IPC applicable.
• Section 494, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishes a person who contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still valid and subsisting, provided the second marriage is legally valid and duly solemnized.

Arguments of the Appellants

• The alleged marriage between Bhaurao Lokhande and Kamlabai was not performed in accordance with the essential religious rites and ceremonies required under Section 7 of the HMA.
• In the absence of proper solemnization, the marriage could not be considered legally valid, and hence, the provisions of Section 494 IPC could not apply.
• The essential ceremonies, including the saptapadi or equivalent customary rituals, were not proven by the prosecution.

Arguments of the Respondent (State)

• The State contended that the second marriage was customary in the community and followed the Gandharva form of marriage, which was valid under Hindu law.
• It was argued that even if the ceremonies were simple or minimal, they were sufficient to constitute a marriage for the purpose of attracting the penal provisions of Section 494 IPC.
• Therefore, the conviction recorded by the lower courts should be upheld.

Observation of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasised that for a conviction under Section 494 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the second marriage was a valid one in law. To be valid, the marriage must be solemnized in accordance with Section 7 of the HMA, which requires the performance of customary rites and ceremonies.

The Court clarified that a marriage not performed according to such rites is no marriage at all, and consequently, it cannot give rise to a charge of bigamy. The Court noted that even in unconventional or ancient forms of marriage such as the Gandharva form, essential elements and ceremonies are still necessary for legal recognition.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the essential religious ceremonies had been performed during the second marriage between the appellant and Kamlabai. The evidence did not demonstrate that the marriage was conducted in accordance with any valid custom or recognised ritual, nor was there proof of performance of saptapadi or equivalent rites.

Bhaurao Lokhande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Judgement

The Supreme Court held that:

• The second marriage between Bhaurao Lokhande and Kamlabai was not solemnized in accordance with the requisite ceremonies under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Since the marriage was invalid in law, it could not attract the provisions of Section 494 IPC.
• The conviction recorded by the lower courts was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Thus, the Court reaffirmed that for the offence of bigamy to be established, the second marriage must be validly solemnized, and the absence of essential rituals and ceremonies would render it invalid.

Conclusion

The judgement in Bhaurao Lokhande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra is a cornerstone in the interpretation of bigamy under Indian criminal law. It establishes that the offence under Section 494 IPC presupposes a legally valid second marriage, which can only exist if it is solemnized according to Section 7 of the HMA. A mere social or symbolic union without essential religious rites cannot constitute a valid marriage under Hindu law.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that criminal liability under Section 494 IPC arises only when a second marriage possesses the legal and ritual validity required under Hindu law. This ruling remains a guiding precedent in determining the legality of marriages in bigamy prosecutions.