This article is written by
. This article dives into the case of S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (2001) in detail and covers the facts, issues, and judgement with a comprehensive analysis of the current positioning of the law.
The case of was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and it stands as a landmark case in the field of family law. This case serves as a pivotal moment in the legal framework in India surrounding the offence of bigamy under the (IPC), the right to choose one’s spouse under of the Indian , and the evolution of marriage laws in India. This case not only provides an in-depth analysis of of the , and of the IPC but also intersects with significant constitutional and legislative developments that have shaped modern perspectives on marriages in India.
Essentially, Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was inserted by the . It received the President’s assent on January 17, 1968. This amendment is specifically applicable to Tamil Nadu and addresses ‘self-respect and secular marriages’. It legally acknowledges any marriage between two Hindus without following rituals or having a priest solemnise the marriage. Instead, the couples can marry by simply declaring their marriage in the presence of friends, relatives, or other witnesses. This form of marriage is also referred to as ‘suyamariyathai’ or ‘seerthiruththa marriage’. As we know, Bigamy is a criminal offence under IPC and a ground of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act; the appellant, in this case, did a second marriage and argued that his second marriage was not valid according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it did not follow the mandatory ceremonies required for a valid marriage, i.e., Saptapadi (the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire). The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed the applicability of Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to constitute the offence of bigamy against the appellant.
The appeal in S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami (2001), challenged the judgement of a learned single judge of the Madras High Court, which overturned the acquittal granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The single judge found the appellant guilty under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The appellant, S. Nagalingam, married the respondent-complainant, Sivagami, on September 6, 1970, and they had three children. The respondent alleged that the appellant mistreated her and that she was tortured both by her husband and mother-in-law. Due to the ill treatment, she left the marital home to stay with her parents. It was later discovered that the appellant had married another woman named Kasturi on June 18, 1984, at a marriage hall in Thiruthani. Sivagami filed a criminal complaint against her husband and six others. The trial court acquitted all the accused.
Dissatisfied with the judgement, the respondent appealed before the Madras High Court. The single judge bench upheld the acquittal of the accused 2-7 but remitted the case back to the trial court regarding reconsideration of the acquittal of S. Nagalingam, allowing the complainant to provide evidence on the solemnisation of the second marriage. Upon examination of the priest and the other witnesses, the Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted Mr. Nagalingam.
Ms. Sivagami then appealed to the Madras High Court, where the single judge held that S. Nagalingam had committed the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC.
The judgement by the single judge bench of the Madras High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court by the appellant.
It was established that ‘Saptapadi’ is an essential ritual for a valid Hindu marriage, and the appellant contended that the absence of the ‘Saptapadi’ ritual in the second marriage rendered it invalid.
An appeal was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgement passed by the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court discussed the essential elements of the offence under Section 494 of the IPC, i.e.
The Court accepted that S. Nagalingam’s marriage with Sivagami was in effect at the time of the alleged second marriage.
The Metropolitan Magistrate ruled that the second marriage was not valid because the crucial ceremony of ‘Saptapadi’ was not performed, hence the offence of bigamy was not constituted under IPC.
The single judge reversed this decision on appeal, stating that the parties are governed by Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as they are Hindus residing in Tamil Nadu. The judge held that the second marriage was valid and found the appellant guilty of bigamy. The High Court further added that the appellant did not contend that an essential ritual of the marriage ceremony, ‘Saptapadi’ was not performed, thus the second marriage should be deemed invalid.
The Court reiterated that through the Hindu Marriage Tamil Nadu (Amendment) Act, 1967, by the State of Tamil Nadu, Section 7-A has been inserted in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the marriage of S. Nagalingam and Kasturi is subject to Section 7-A.
The Apex Court relied on several cases (discussed below) to establish that for a marriage to constitute the offence of bigamy, it is to be proved that the essential ceremonies required for a valid marriage were performed in both marriages.
The Court further analysed Section 7-A, which is a special provision regarding suyamiyathai and seerthiruththa marriages. It states that Section 7-A applies to any marriage between any two Hindus, whether called suyamiyathai or seerthiruththa marriage or by any other name, solemnised in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons. The marriage can be considered valid if both parties declare in any language they understand that they accept each other as husband and wife, if they exchange garlands or rings, or if they tie the thali (a traditional wedding necklace). Irrespective of what is stated in of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, all marriages conducted under Section 7-A are legally valid.
Regardless of what is stated in Section 7, or in any other Hindu law, custom, or court ruling in effect before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967, all marriages under Section 7-A conducted before the amendment came into force will also be considered legally valid from the date they were performed. The key feature of this provision is that a priest is not necessarily required for a valid marriage. Instead, the couple can marry in the presence of relatives or friends and must declare in mutually understood language about their acceptance as spouses to each other. The marriage is then completed by a simple ceremony, which involves garlanding each other, exchanging rings, or tying a thali. Any of these acts is sufficient to constitute a valid marriage.
states that despite what is contained in Section 7, all marriages conducted under the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967, are legally valid.
In the instant case, it was evident that the groom tied the ‘Thirumangalam’ around the bride’s neck, the couple exchanged garlands three times, and the bride’s father formally gave his daughter to the groom in the presence of witnesses.
Given the circumstances, Section 7-A was applied to the marriage between S. Nagalingam and Kasturi. It was held that ‘Saptapadi’ is considered essential only if the parties acknowledge it as such for their marriage. In this case, the appellant did not claim that ‘Saptapadi’ was necessary for a valid marriage under their personal law.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the judgement by the Single Judge Bench of Madras High Court. It was held that the appellant had committed bigamy.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on several cases to establish the importance of Saptapadi.
In this , the Supreme Court held that in the case of bigamy, it needs to be proved that all the essential ceremonies required for a valid marriage were performed in the second marriage. A mere admission on the part of the accused may not be sufficient to constitute that offence.
Kubja (the bride), Kanwal Ram (the bridegroom), Kanwal Nand, and Seesia (relatives of the bride) were charged under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with of IPC,1860, for abetment of bigamy on the complaint filed by Sadh Ram, who was married to Kubja since 1940-41. The marriage between Kanwal Ram and Kubja allegedly took place in September 1955, when the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was in force and prohibited the marriage of a Hindu during the lifetime of their spouse. Both marriages were performed according to a customary form called Praina, recognised in their village in Himachal Pradesh. The essential ceremonies for a Praina marriage include the offering of ‘suhag’ bringing the bride to the bridegroom’s house, performing Puja and Katha, the bride picking up a pot and bowing at the family hearth, and making obeisance to the elders. The witness for the second marriage only testified that Seesia brought the suhag and Hira Nand acted as Prainu, without any mention of other essential ceremonies. The Trial Court as well as the judicial commissioner of Himachal Pradesh held that the evidence of the only witness fell short of proving the second marriage. However, the appellants were convicted by the judicial commissioner on certain admissions by Kubja and Kanwal Ram.
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence provided was insufficient to prove the essential ceremonies for the second marriage of Kubja and Kanwal Ram. The evidence relied upon by the judicial commissioner, including Kanwal Ram’s admission of a sexual relationship with Kubja, was held to be inadequate to prove the marriage. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of the appellants.
In this , the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court, which ruled that marriage was void as two essential ceremonies of a valid marriage, i.e., ‘datta homa’ and ‘saptapadi,’ were not performed.
The complainant (appellant) filed an appeal by special leave against the acquittal of respondents by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant claimed that respondent number 1 was his wife, who had contracted a second marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting. The first marriage between the appellant and respondent number 1 took place on April 22, 1968. After three years, the relationship between them became strained, and they separated without a divorce. On April 1, 1972, respondent number 1 married accused number 4. The respondents had been convicted by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge under Section 494 of the IPC and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of one hundred rupees. The High Court acquitted the accused on the grounds that there was no proof of a valid marriage between accused number 1 and accused number 4.
The High Court found no evidence that the essential ceremonies (Datta Homa and Saptapadi) required for a valid Hindu marriage were performed and rendered the second marriage void. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and stated that before a conviction can be recorded under Section 494 of the IPC, the following ingredients must be satisfied:
In this , the appellant was acquitted by the Supreme Court as there was no proof of a valid marriage as ‘Saptapadi’ was not performed.
The appeal was directed against the judgement of the Gauhati High Court. The appellant’s first marriage was solemnised on July 7, 1962. The appellant contracted a second marriage with Namita Ghosh on February 24, 1969. The respondent filed a complaint before the Munsif-Magistrate 1st class. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 494 of the IPC and sentenced him to 1.5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of one thousand rupees. The convicted accused appealed to the Additional Sessions judge, who acquitted the accused. The respondent appealed the acquittal to the High Court, which convicted the appellant.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and acquitted the accused in the absence of proof of marriage. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in calling the second marriage valid on the basis of letters and oral evidence only.
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, discusses the rituals and ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. It states that a Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party to the marriage. Further, it states that the essential rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire) and that the marriage becomes complete and binding after the seventh step.
is a special provision regarding suyamariyathai and seerthiruththa marriages. It was inserted to address the specific needs in the State of Tamil Nadu. It recognised those marriages that might not follow the traditional or customary ceremonies, such as saptapadi, but are still solemnised by mutual consent between the parties and in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons. It involves each party to the marriage declaring, in any language, that they accept each other as husband and wife. It is done by each party garlanding the other, putting a ring on any finger of the other, or by tying the thali.
of the Indian Penal Code deals with bigamy. It states that whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the lifetime of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine.
This case holds significant importance even today, as it serves as a landmark case in the interpretation of personal laws under the Hindu Marriage Act and also in the context of bigamy under the Indian Penal Code. The decision reiterates the legal validity of marriages conducted under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, as amended by Tamil Nadu, which allows for marriages without traditional rituals, thereby promoting a more inclusive understanding of marriage.
The concept of self-respect marriages dates back to the 1920s. Tamil social reformer Periyar initiated the self-respect movement aimed at abolishing caste endogamy and empowering marginalised castes to live with dignity. Self-respect marriages were developed as part of this broader movement, with the first such marriage officiated by Periyar himself in 1928. Traditional marriages in India often aim to maintain ‘caste purity’ by arranging marriages within the same caste. The objective of the self-respect movement was to promote inter-caste marriages founded on respect and equality. These marriages also challenge patriarchal norms to reclaim control and build partnerships based on dignity and equality. Even after this movement, the concept of reformed marriages has not gained widespread acceptance and traction as its applicability is limited to Hindu ceremonies under the Hindu Marriage Act, and it remains legally recognised only in the State of Tamil Nadu.
In May 2023, the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Bar Council to begin disciplinary actions against lawyers who conduct secret marriages in their offices and issue marriage certificates. Justice M. Dhandapani and R. Vijaykumar of the Madurai Bench emphasised that all marriages, including self-respect marriages, must be registered under the , mandating the parties to appear in person before the Registrar. The High Court cited its decision in , which held that marriages performed secretly in advocate’s offices or bar association rooms do not constitute valid marriages under the law.
In the case of , the Madras High Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Ilavarasan, who claimed that his 20-year-old wife, namely Mathithra, was forcefully detained by her parents despite their marriage being conducted in the presence of advocates and trade union officials under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act. He also stated that his wife was forcibly married to her maternal uncle when she was a minor. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition and ruled that the marriage of Ilavarasan was invalid, and directed the Bar Council to take disciplinary action against the lawyers involved.
In the case of Ilavarasan vs. The Superintendent of Police and ors. (2023), a Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar overruled the Madras High Court’s decision in S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan, stating that self-respect marriages do not require public solemnisation or declaration. The Bench cited the case of S. Nagalingam, where it upheld Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu State Amendment) Act. The Court highlighted the practical realities faced by couples opting for self-respect marriages, stating, “The view expressed by the Madras High Court in Balakrishnan Pandiyan is erroneous. It is premised on the assumption that each marriage requires a public solemnization or declaration. Such a view is rather simplistic because often, due to parental pressure, couples intending to enter into matrimony may not enter into it for the reason of such opposition, hold, or give such a public declaration, as doing so would imperil their lives and could very likely result in a threat of bodily integrity, or forcible or coerced separation”.
The Apex Court also noted that the High Court’s stance infringes on the fundamental right to marry a person of one’s own choice, as declared in the case of , and hence, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
However, the Bench stated that even though the High Court’s observations regarding advocates might have been unwarranted, some of the concerns raised were valid. It noted that advocates, being officers of the court, should refrain from officiating such marriages but can do so in their private capacity as friends or as relatives.
The case of S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami presents various implications for the marriage rights of individuals, the interpretation by the judiciary, and the role of the judiciary in guaranteeing these rights to couples. By affirming the legality of marriage conducted under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, without the traditional ceremonies, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 7-A and acknowledged the need to adapt legal frameworks to the current social norms. The Supreme Court overturned the decision in S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan of the Madras High Court; the judgement by the Madras High Court raises questions about the consistency in legal interpretations by the courts.
Further, the overturning of S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan vs. Inspector of Police (2014) reflects the connection between personal choice and the expectations of society. While the Court upheld individuals’ right to marry according to their choice, it also accepted the pressure and constraints faced by the couples in openly declaring their marriages.
Overall, the judgement in S. Nagalingam upholds the validity of Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows the residents of Tamil Nadu to solemnise their marriage without performing the essential ceremony of Saptapadi entailed in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The case of S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami stands as a significant development in the interpretation of bigamy under the IPC and Hindu Marriage Act, particularly with respect to self-respect marriages under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgement’s emphasis on legal recognition of marriages solemnised without the traditional ceremonies acknowledges the socio-cultural shifts towards a more inclusive society. The Supreme Court’s affirmation of this provision highlights the importance of respecting individual autonomy and the fundamental right to marry a partner of one’s choice, free from any societal constraints.
Lastly, the judgement in this case promotes a more progressive and inclusive approach that aligns with the contemporary societal values and constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
The post appeared first on .
Introduction
The case of was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and it stands as a landmark case in the field of family law. This case serves as a pivotal moment in the legal framework in India surrounding the offence of bigamy under the (IPC), the right to choose one’s spouse under of the Indian , and the evolution of marriage laws in India. This case not only provides an in-depth analysis of of the , and of the IPC but also intersects with significant constitutional and legislative developments that have shaped modern perspectives on marriages in India.
Essentially, Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was inserted by the . It received the President’s assent on January 17, 1968. This amendment is specifically applicable to Tamil Nadu and addresses ‘self-respect and secular marriages’. It legally acknowledges any marriage between two Hindus without following rituals or having a priest solemnise the marriage. Instead, the couples can marry by simply declaring their marriage in the presence of friends, relatives, or other witnesses. This form of marriage is also referred to as ‘suyamariyathai’ or ‘seerthiruththa marriage’. As we know, Bigamy is a criminal offence under IPC and a ground of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act; the appellant, in this case, did a second marriage and argued that his second marriage was not valid according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it did not follow the mandatory ceremonies required for a valid marriage, i.e., Saptapadi (the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire). The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed the applicability of Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to constitute the offence of bigamy against the appellant.
Details of the case
- Name: S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami
- Citation: (2001) 7 SCC 487
- Date of the judgement: 31. 08. 2001
- Name of the Appellant: S. Nagalingam
- Name of the Respondent: Sivagami
- Bench: Justices P. Mohapatra, K.G. Balakrishnan
- Statues Referred: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
Facts of S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami (2001)
The appeal in S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami (2001), challenged the judgement of a learned single judge of the Madras High Court, which overturned the acquittal granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The single judge found the appellant guilty under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The appellant, S. Nagalingam, married the respondent-complainant, Sivagami, on September 6, 1970, and they had three children. The respondent alleged that the appellant mistreated her and that she was tortured both by her husband and mother-in-law. Due to the ill treatment, she left the marital home to stay with her parents. It was later discovered that the appellant had married another woman named Kasturi on June 18, 1984, at a marriage hall in Thiruthani. Sivagami filed a criminal complaint against her husband and six others. The trial court acquitted all the accused.
Dissatisfied with the judgement, the respondent appealed before the Madras High Court. The single judge bench upheld the acquittal of the accused 2-7 but remitted the case back to the trial court regarding reconsideration of the acquittal of S. Nagalingam, allowing the complainant to provide evidence on the solemnisation of the second marriage. Upon examination of the priest and the other witnesses, the Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted Mr. Nagalingam.
Ms. Sivagami then appealed to the Madras High Court, where the single judge held that S. Nagalingam had committed the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC.
The judgement by the single judge bench of the Madras High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court by the appellant.
Issues raised in S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami (2001)
- Whether the second marriage entered by the appellant with the second accused, Kasturi, on 18.6.1984 was a valid marriage under Hindu law to constitute an offence under Section 494 of the IPC?
Contentions of the appellant
It was established that ‘Saptapadi’ is an essential ritual for a valid Hindu marriage, and the appellant contended that the absence of the ‘Saptapadi’ ritual in the second marriage rendered it invalid.
Contentions of the respondent
- The respondent established that under the Tamil Nadu amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 7-A is applicable to the residents of Tamil Nadu. Since the appellant belonged to Tamil Nadu, the second marriage is governed under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and should be considered valid even without ‘Saptapadi’ as other rituals such as garlanding and tying of ‘thali’ were performed.
- The respondent claimed that the appellant married another woman while the first marriage was subsisting. Therefore, he should be punished for the offence of Bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC, 1860.
Judgement in S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami (2001)
An appeal was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgement passed by the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court discussed the essential elements of the offence under Section 494 of the IPC, i.e.
- The accused must have contracted a first marriage;
- While the first marriage was subsisting, the accused must have contracted a second marriage;
- Both marriages must be valid, which means that the necessary ceremonies governing the parties must have been performed.
The Court accepted that S. Nagalingam’s marriage with Sivagami was in effect at the time of the alleged second marriage.
Decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate
The Metropolitan Magistrate ruled that the second marriage was not valid because the crucial ceremony of ‘Saptapadi’ was not performed, hence the offence of bigamy was not constituted under IPC.
Decision of the Madras High Court
The single judge reversed this decision on appeal, stating that the parties are governed by Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as they are Hindus residing in Tamil Nadu. The judge held that the second marriage was valid and found the appellant guilty of bigamy. The High Court further added that the appellant did not contend that an essential ritual of the marriage ceremony, ‘Saptapadi’ was not performed, thus the second marriage should be deemed invalid.
The Court reiterated that through the Hindu Marriage Tamil Nadu (Amendment) Act, 1967, by the State of Tamil Nadu, Section 7-A has been inserted in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the marriage of S. Nagalingam and Kasturi is subject to Section 7-A.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Apex Court relied on several cases (discussed below) to establish that for a marriage to constitute the offence of bigamy, it is to be proved that the essential ceremonies required for a valid marriage were performed in both marriages.
The Court further analysed Section 7-A, which is a special provision regarding suyamiyathai and seerthiruththa marriages. It states that Section 7-A applies to any marriage between any two Hindus, whether called suyamiyathai or seerthiruththa marriage or by any other name, solemnised in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons. The marriage can be considered valid if both parties declare in any language they understand that they accept each other as husband and wife, if they exchange garlands or rings, or if they tie the thali (a traditional wedding necklace). Irrespective of what is stated in of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, all marriages conducted under Section 7-A are legally valid.
Regardless of what is stated in Section 7, or in any other Hindu law, custom, or court ruling in effect before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967, all marriages under Section 7-A conducted before the amendment came into force will also be considered legally valid from the date they were performed. The key feature of this provision is that a priest is not necessarily required for a valid marriage. Instead, the couple can marry in the presence of relatives or friends and must declare in mutually understood language about their acceptance as spouses to each other. The marriage is then completed by a simple ceremony, which involves garlanding each other, exchanging rings, or tying a thali. Any of these acts is sufficient to constitute a valid marriage.
states that despite what is contained in Section 7, all marriages conducted under the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967, are legally valid.
In the instant case, it was evident that the groom tied the ‘Thirumangalam’ around the bride’s neck, the couple exchanged garlands three times, and the bride’s father formally gave his daughter to the groom in the presence of witnesses.
Given the circumstances, Section 7-A was applied to the marriage between S. Nagalingam and Kasturi. It was held that ‘Saptapadi’ is considered essential only if the parties acknowledge it as such for their marriage. In this case, the appellant did not claim that ‘Saptapadi’ was necessary for a valid marriage under their personal law.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the judgement by the Single Judge Bench of Madras High Court. It was held that the appellant had committed bigamy.
Cases relied on by the Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on several cases to establish the importance of Saptapadi.
Kanwal Ram and Ors. vs. H.P. Administration (1965)
In this , the Supreme Court held that in the case of bigamy, it needs to be proved that all the essential ceremonies required for a valid marriage were performed in the second marriage. A mere admission on the part of the accused may not be sufficient to constitute that offence.
Facts of the case
Kubja (the bride), Kanwal Ram (the bridegroom), Kanwal Nand, and Seesia (relatives of the bride) were charged under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with of IPC,1860, for abetment of bigamy on the complaint filed by Sadh Ram, who was married to Kubja since 1940-41. The marriage between Kanwal Ram and Kubja allegedly took place in September 1955, when the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was in force and prohibited the marriage of a Hindu during the lifetime of their spouse. Both marriages were performed according to a customary form called Praina, recognised in their village in Himachal Pradesh. The essential ceremonies for a Praina marriage include the offering of ‘suhag’ bringing the bride to the bridegroom’s house, performing Puja and Katha, the bride picking up a pot and bowing at the family hearth, and making obeisance to the elders. The witness for the second marriage only testified that Seesia brought the suhag and Hira Nand acted as Prainu, without any mention of other essential ceremonies. The Trial Court as well as the judicial commissioner of Himachal Pradesh held that the evidence of the only witness fell short of proving the second marriage. However, the appellants were convicted by the judicial commissioner on certain admissions by Kubja and Kanwal Ram.
Issue
- Whether the second marriage between Kubja and Kanwal Ram was legally valid?
Judgement
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence provided was insufficient to prove the essential ceremonies for the second marriage of Kubja and Kanwal Ram. The evidence relied upon by the judicial commissioner, including Kanwal Ram’s admission of a sexual relationship with Kubja, was held to be inadequate to prove the marriage. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of the appellants.
Lingari Obulamma vs. L. Venkata Reddy and ors. (1979)
In this , the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court, which ruled that marriage was void as two essential ceremonies of a valid marriage, i.e., ‘datta homa’ and ‘saptapadi,’ were not performed.
Facts of the case
The complainant (appellant) filed an appeal by special leave against the acquittal of respondents by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant claimed that respondent number 1 was his wife, who had contracted a second marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting. The first marriage between the appellant and respondent number 1 took place on April 22, 1968. After three years, the relationship between them became strained, and they separated without a divorce. On April 1, 1972, respondent number 1 married accused number 4. The respondents had been convicted by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge under Section 494 of the IPC and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of one hundred rupees. The High Court acquitted the accused on the grounds that there was no proof of a valid marriage between accused number 1 and accused number 4.
Issue
- Whether the second marriage contracted by respondent number 1 with respondent number 4 was a legally valid marriage under the law?
Judgement
The High Court found no evidence that the essential ceremonies (Datta Homa and Saptapadi) required for a valid Hindu marriage were performed and rendered the second marriage void. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and stated that before a conviction can be recorded under Section 494 of the IPC, the following ingredients must be satisfied:
- The complainant had been married to the accused;
- That the accused contracted a second marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting;
- Both marriages were valid, according to the law governing the parties.
Santi Deb Berma vs. Kanchan Prava Devi (1991)
In this , the appellant was acquitted by the Supreme Court as there was no proof of a valid marriage as ‘Saptapadi’ was not performed.
Facts of the case
The appeal was directed against the judgement of the Gauhati High Court. The appellant’s first marriage was solemnised on July 7, 1962. The appellant contracted a second marriage with Namita Ghosh on February 24, 1969. The respondent filed a complaint before the Munsif-Magistrate 1st class. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 494 of the IPC and sentenced him to 1.5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of one thousand rupees. The convicted accused appealed to the Additional Sessions judge, who acquitted the accused. The respondent appealed the acquittal to the High Court, which convicted the appellant.
Issue
- Whether the second marriage contracted by the appellant with Namita Ghosh was a legally valid marriage?
Judgement
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and acquitted the accused in the absence of proof of marriage. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in calling the second marriage valid on the basis of letters and oral evidence only.
Sections discussed in S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami (2001)
Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, discusses the rituals and ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. It states that a Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party to the marriage. Further, it states that the essential rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire) and that the marriage becomes complete and binding after the seventh step.
Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act
is a special provision regarding suyamariyathai and seerthiruththa marriages. It was inserted to address the specific needs in the State of Tamil Nadu. It recognised those marriages that might not follow the traditional or customary ceremonies, such as saptapadi, but are still solemnised by mutual consent between the parties and in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons. It involves each party to the marriage declaring, in any language, that they accept each other as husband and wife. It is done by each party garlanding the other, putting a ring on any finger of the other, or by tying the thali.
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code
of the Indian Penal Code deals with bigamy. It states that whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the lifetime of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine.
Significance of S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami (2001)
This case holds significant importance even today, as it serves as a landmark case in the interpretation of personal laws under the Hindu Marriage Act and also in the context of bigamy under the Indian Penal Code. The decision reiterates the legal validity of marriages conducted under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, as amended by Tamil Nadu, which allows for marriages without traditional rituals, thereby promoting a more inclusive understanding of marriage.
‘Self-respect’ marriages
The concept of self-respect marriages dates back to the 1920s. Tamil social reformer Periyar initiated the self-respect movement aimed at abolishing caste endogamy and empowering marginalised castes to live with dignity. Self-respect marriages were developed as part of this broader movement, with the first such marriage officiated by Periyar himself in 1928. Traditional marriages in India often aim to maintain ‘caste purity’ by arranging marriages within the same caste. The objective of the self-respect movement was to promote inter-caste marriages founded on respect and equality. These marriages also challenge patriarchal norms to reclaim control and build partnerships based on dignity and equality. Even after this movement, the concept of reformed marriages has not gained widespread acceptance and traction as its applicability is limited to Hindu ceremonies under the Hindu Marriage Act, and it remains legally recognised only in the State of Tamil Nadu.
In May 2023, the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Bar Council to begin disciplinary actions against lawyers who conduct secret marriages in their offices and issue marriage certificates. Justice M. Dhandapani and R. Vijaykumar of the Madurai Bench emphasised that all marriages, including self-respect marriages, must be registered under the , mandating the parties to appear in person before the Registrar. The High Court cited its decision in , which held that marriages performed secretly in advocate’s offices or bar association rooms do not constitute valid marriages under the law.
In the case of , the Madras High Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Ilavarasan, who claimed that his 20-year-old wife, namely Mathithra, was forcefully detained by her parents despite their marriage being conducted in the presence of advocates and trade union officials under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act. He also stated that his wife was forcibly married to her maternal uncle when she was a minor. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition and ruled that the marriage of Ilavarasan was invalid, and directed the Bar Council to take disciplinary action against the lawyers involved.
Overruling of S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan vs. Inspector of Police (2014) by the Supreme Court
In the case of Ilavarasan vs. The Superintendent of Police and ors. (2023), a Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar overruled the Madras High Court’s decision in S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan, stating that self-respect marriages do not require public solemnisation or declaration. The Bench cited the case of S. Nagalingam, where it upheld Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu State Amendment) Act. The Court highlighted the practical realities faced by couples opting for self-respect marriages, stating, “The view expressed by the Madras High Court in Balakrishnan Pandiyan is erroneous. It is premised on the assumption that each marriage requires a public solemnization or declaration. Such a view is rather simplistic because often, due to parental pressure, couples intending to enter into matrimony may not enter into it for the reason of such opposition, hold, or give such a public declaration, as doing so would imperil their lives and could very likely result in a threat of bodily integrity, or forcible or coerced separation”.
The Apex Court also noted that the High Court’s stance infringes on the fundamental right to marry a person of one’s own choice, as declared in the case of , and hence, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
However, the Bench stated that even though the High Court’s observations regarding advocates might have been unwarranted, some of the concerns raised were valid. It noted that advocates, being officers of the court, should refrain from officiating such marriages but can do so in their private capacity as friends or as relatives.
Critical analysis of S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami (2001)
The case of S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami presents various implications for the marriage rights of individuals, the interpretation by the judiciary, and the role of the judiciary in guaranteeing these rights to couples. By affirming the legality of marriage conducted under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, without the traditional ceremonies, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 7-A and acknowledged the need to adapt legal frameworks to the current social norms. The Supreme Court overturned the decision in S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan of the Madras High Court; the judgement by the Madras High Court raises questions about the consistency in legal interpretations by the courts.
Further, the overturning of S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan vs. Inspector of Police (2014) reflects the connection between personal choice and the expectations of society. While the Court upheld individuals’ right to marry according to their choice, it also accepted the pressure and constraints faced by the couples in openly declaring their marriages.
Overall, the judgement in S. Nagalingam upholds the validity of Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows the residents of Tamil Nadu to solemnise their marriage without performing the essential ceremony of Saptapadi entailed in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Conclusion
The case of S. Nagalingam vs. Sivagami stands as a significant development in the interpretation of bigamy under the IPC and Hindu Marriage Act, particularly with respect to self-respect marriages under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgement’s emphasis on legal recognition of marriages solemnised without the traditional ceremonies acknowledges the socio-cultural shifts towards a more inclusive society. The Supreme Court’s affirmation of this provision highlights the importance of respecting individual autonomy and the fundamental right to marry a partner of one’s choice, free from any societal constraints.
Lastly, the judgement in this case promotes a more progressive and inclusive approach that aligns with the contemporary societal values and constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
References
The post appeared first on .