web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: April 2022

Bar Council of Kerala Vs T.Koshy on 12 Apr 2018

Posted on April 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Kerala High Court (Order written by Chief Justice!) upon a writ appeal from here) held that Bar Council (of any State or India) do not have power to prescribe any fee for the enrolment, either in the form of enrolment fee or special fee. This was eventually taken to Supreme Court where the Bar Council failed to convince the Apex Court here.

From Para 7,

7.Thus the surviving question is whether the fixation of special fee is encompassed by the conditions which the Bar Council is entitled to prescribe in the rules made by it in view of section 24(1)(e) and section 28(2)(d). As we have already seen and as found by the learned single Judge, in section 24(1)(f), the Legislature itself has prescribed the enrolment fee payable by a candidate applying for enrolment with a Bar Council of a State. Once the legislature has prescribed enrolment fee, another fee, be it called a special fee or anything else, can legitimately be prescribed by a State Bar Council or any other authority only if there is an express legislative sanction therefor. In so far as section 24(1)(e) is concerned, all that it empowers the State Bar Council is to specify in the rules made by it under Chapter III of the Act the other conditions that a candidate should fulfill for enrolment. That rule making power also finds reflection in section 28(2)(d) which provides for the power of the Bar Council to make rules prescribing the conditions subject to which a person could be admitted as an advocate on its rolls. These provisions, in our view, only deal with the eligibility conditions and those conditions do not empower the Bar Council to prescribe any fee for the enrolment, either in the form of enrolment fee or special fee. Therefore, the prescription of special fee as done by the Bar Council of Kerala is totally ultra vires its powers as conferred under the Advocates Act, 1961.

2018-04-12 The Bar Council of Kerala Vs T.Koshy on 12 Apr 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b59b5e74a93261b1dbe8e49

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Advocates Act Section 24 - Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll Affirmed by Supreme Court of India or SLP dismissed Bar Council of Kerala Vs T.Koshy Illegal fees during Enrollment to State Bar Council | Leave a comment

Bar Council of Kerala Vs T.Koshy on 30 Nov 2016

Posted on April 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A wonderful judgment from a single judge bench of Kerala High Court held as follows:

 

2016-11-30 The Bar Council of Kerala Vs T.Koshy on 30 Nov 2016

Citations :

Other Sources :


This decision was upheld by a division bench of Kerala High Court here and Supreme Court refused to consider the SPLs filed by Bar Council of Kerala here.

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Advocates Act Section 24 - Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll Affirmed by Supreme Court of India or SLP dismissed Bar Council of Kerala Vs T.Koshy Illegal fees during Enrollment to State Bar Council | Leave a comment

Vipin Rajput Vs State of MP on 13 Apr 2022

Posted on April 23, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of MP said that, the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by the clients if the non-appearance was solely on the ground of a strike call..

From Para 6,

6. From the impugned order, it is clear that on 28.12.2021 Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18) had appeared and her examination-in-chief was recorded and in spite of various judgments passed by the Supreme Court as well as High Court, by which strike by the lawyers has been declared to be illegal, the lawyers were abstaining from work. Thereafter, at the request of the applicant, cross-examination of Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18) was deferred for the next date and on the next date, i.e., 29.12.2021 counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine her. The case was then adjourned to 11.01.2022 and on the said date also, counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18). Thus, it is clear that not only, the lawyers were abstaining from work contrary to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45, but the counsel for the applicant was out and out to harass the prosecution witness Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18) as he did not cross-examine her in spite of an opportunity given by the Trial Court on 29.12.2021 and 11.01.2022.

From Para 10,

10. Thus, it is clear that the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by the clients if the non-appearance was solely on the ground of a strike call. On 28.12.2021 the prosecution witness was not cross-examined because the lawyers were abstaining from work. The Bar cannot justify its strike merely by saying that they are not on strike, but they are abstaining from work. Strike and abstaining from work is one and the same thing. In spite of the fact that the lawyers were on illegal strike by calling it as abstaining from work, the Trial Court fixed the case for the next date, i.e., 29.12.2021 for cross-examination of prosecution witness Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18). However, in spite of that, the counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine her. Thereafter, the case was again fixed for 11.01.2022 and on the said date also, counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine her.

From Para 11 and 12,

11. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since the trial involves serious disputed questions of facts and law, therefore, counsel for the applicant was required to make preparation for cross-examining the prosecution witness and, therefore, he could not cross-examine her on 11.01.2022 and further it was already 5:15 PM.
12. The submission made by the counsel for the applicant is not acceptable. The Trial is pending since 08.02.2017, i.e., the date on which the charges were framed. Even after a long five years of pendency of trial, if the counsel for the applicant has not prepared the case, then only he is to be blamed.
13. So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant that since it was already 5:15 PM, therefore, he did not cross-examine her is concerned, it is clear from the order sheet of the Trial Court that the witness had appeared at 3:00 PM but pass over was sought by the counsel for the applicant. If the Court had accommodated the counsel by passing over the matter, then the counsel cannot make a complaint that since working hours were over, therefore, he had a right to refuse to cross-examine the witness.

From Para 14,

14. Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the counsel is ready to pay the compensation as well as expenses to the witness out of his own pocket. If the applicant has engaged a lawyer who is not serious towards his profession, then the applicant has a remedy to approach the Bar Council and if the counsel for the applicant was working as per the instructions of the applicant, then the applicant cannot run away from his liability of not cross-examining the prosecution witness Ranjana Chauhan on 28.12.2021, 29.12.2021 and 11.01.2022.

From Para 16,

16. However, liberty is granted to the applicant that in case, if his counsel had acted contrary to his instructions and did not cross-examine the witness in spite of his clear instructions, then he shall have a remedy of filing a civil suit for claiming compensation. He shall also have a remedy to approach the Bar Council against his local counsel for abstaining from work in spite of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra).

Vipin Rajput Vs State of MP on 13 Apr 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

 

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Advocate Antics Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Vipin Rajput Vs State of MP | Leave a comment

IPC 309 – Attempt to commit suicide

Posted on April 23, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 309 - Attempt to commit suicide | Leave a comment

Red Lynx Confederation Vs Union of India on 11 Sep 2020

Posted on April 23, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench of Apex Court held as follows:

Issue notice to the learned Attorney General for India, calling upon the Union of India to justify the validity of section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 which virtually negates section 309 IPC.

Red Lynx Confederation Vs Union of India on 11 Sep 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6356231/

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision IPC 309 - Attempt to commit suicide Law or Provision is Alleged as Unconstitutional | Leave a comment

Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022

Posted on April 14, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench of Apex Court (Justice Ravindra Bhat’s name is missing in the judgment PDF), while overruling the decision in Dr.P.Pathmanathan case here, held that, limitation under section 468 CrPC does not apply to DV cases filed under Section 12 of the Act. They are not defined as crimes under the Act.

From Paras 20 and 21,

20. It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. In our considered view, the High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence.

21. It is, however, true that as noted by the Protection Officer in his Domestic Inspection Report dated 2.08.2018, there appears to be a period of almost 10 years after 16.09.2008, when nothing was alleged by the appellant against the husband. But that is a matter which will certainly be considered by the Magistrate after response is received from the husband and the rival contentions are considered. That is an exercise which has to be undertaken by the Magistrate after considering all the factual aspects presented before him, including whether the allegations constitute a continuing wrong.

22. Lastly, we deal with the submission based on the decision in Adalat Prasad. The ratio in that case applies when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and issues process, in which event instead of going back to the Magistrate, the remedy lies in filing petition under Section 482 of the Code. The scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued. Thus, the matter stands on a different footing and the dictum in Adalat Prasad would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act.

Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147915185/

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/court-entitled-to-take-cognizance-where-the-complaint-was-filed-within-the-limitation-period-sc-in-kamatchi-vs-lakshmi-narayanan-5857.asp

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/limitation-period-us-468-crpc-not-applicable-application-us-12-domestic-violence-supreme-court-kamatchi-vs-lakshmi-narayanan-2022-livelaw-sc-370-196595

https://www.barandbench.com/news/application-under-section-12-of-domestic-violence-act-need-not-be-filed-within-1-year-of-alleged-act-of-domestic-violence-supreme-court


Earlier decision of Madras High Court here.


Index of DV cases here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan Landmark Case Overrules Dr.P.Pathmanathan Overruling Judgment PWDV Act - Time Limitation not applicable for Sec 12 Application but for Sec 31 Offence Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Kannan Vs Selvamuthukani on 30 Jan 2012

Posted on April 13, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that, it has to be clearly established that the family members of Accused-husband knew that his divorce with his first wife was set aside before participating in the second marriage.

9. The prosecution has clearly established that A1 was married to the complainant on 16.6.1980. It is also a fact that A1 obtained a decree of divorce on 20.2.1991 which was set aside on 10.2.1992 in the appeal carried by the complainant against the said decree of divorce. Evidence of the complainant establishes beyond doubt that A1 married A4 on 8.3.1992. The question is whether the fact that the decree of divorce was set aside and the marriage between A1 and the complainant was revived was known to A3, A4 and A5. Merely because A3 is the sister of A1, it cannot be presumed that she knew that the decree of divorce was set aside. If A1 wanted to marry A4, it is possible that he would keep back these facts from his sister as also from A4 and A5 i.e. his second wife and her father respectively.

10. In our opinion, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 does not conclusively establish that the fact that the decree of divorce was set aside on 10.2.1992 was known to A3, A4 and A5 and, therefore, benefit of doubt must be given to A3, A4 and A5. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.9.2008 so far as it convicts and sentences A3, A4 and A5 needs to be set aside.

Kannan Vs Selvamuthukani on 30 Jan 2012

Citations : [2012 SCC CRI 3 234], [2012 SUPREME 1 714], [2012 AIR SC 1278], [2012 ANJ SC 1 204], [2012 CRIMES SC 1 225], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 331], [2012 JT 1 554], [2012 DMC SC 1 327], [2012 AIOL 2007], [2012 AIR SC 1217], [2012 SLT 1 626], [2012 RCR CIVIL SC 4 356], [2012 SCC 5 570], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 2 428], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 92], [2012 AIC 111 270], [2012 UC 1 506], [2012 NCC 1 686], [2012 ALD CRI 2 155], [2012 CALLT SC 3 21], [2012 SCALE 2 9], [2012 AIR SCW 1278], [2012 CRI LJ 1576]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/180112594/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1de4b0149711415a65

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=002102170000&Title=KANNAN-Vs.-SELVAMUTHUKANI

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/kannan-vs-selvamuthukani-7495

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife Kannan Vs Selvamuthukani Non-Reportable Judgement or Order Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

K Neelaveni Vs State Rep By Inspector of Police and Ors on 22 Mar 2010

Posted on April 13, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that there are, prima facie, specific allegations in the FIR to attract IPC 406 and 494.

From Paras 8 and 9,

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced and we are inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. From a perusal of the allegations made in the First Information Report, it is evident that the appellant has clearly alleged that her husband had married another lady namely Bharathi and the said marriage had taken place in the presence and with the support of other accused persons. She had also stated that from the second marriage with Bharathi a girl child was born. In the First Information Report, it had clearly been alleged that besides gold ornaments other household articles were given in marriage and further she was subjected to cruelty and driven out from the matrimonial home by the accused persons. In our opinion, the allegations made in the First Information Report, at this stage, have to be accepted as true, and allegations so made prima facie, constitute offences under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It has to be borne in mind that while considering the application for quashing of the charge sheet, the allegations made in the First Information Report and the materials collected during the course of the investigation are required to be considered. Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage as it is always a matter of trial. Essential ceremonies of the Marriage were gone into or not is a matter of trial.

9. From what we have said above, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in holding that the charge sheet does not reveal the ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 494 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

K Neelaveni Vs State Rep By Inspector of Police and Ors on 22 Mar 2010

Citations : [2010 SCJ 3 654], [2010 AIR SC 3191], [2010 SCC 11 607], [2011 KLJ NOC 2 10], [2010 SCALE 3 261], [2010 DMC 1 560], [2010 SLT 2 604], [2010 CUTLT SUPPL 947], [2010 AIOL 153], [2010 CRIMES SC 2 90], [2010 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 547], [2011 SCC CRI 1 219], [2010 SUPREME 2 543], [2010 ECRN 2 541], [2010 AIR SC 2760], [2010 AIC 88 58], [2010 MLJ CRL 3 352], [2010 CRLJ SC 2819], [2010 JT SC 3 156], [2010 AIR SCW 2760]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1440610/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aeece4b01497114152ae

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/k-neelaveni-vs-state-rep-by-insp-of-police-9855

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=000102622000

https://advocatespedia.com/Case_Study:_K_Neelaveni_Vs_State_Rep_By_Inspector_of_Police_%26_Ors_Case

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife K Neelaveni Vs State Rep By Inspector of Police and Ors Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC

Posted on April 13, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A short collection of Bigamy Judgments u/s 494 IPC/495 IPC.

  1. Priya Bala Ghosh Vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 Mar 1971 [SC: Acceptable proof necessary that the (alleged second) marriage of the accused was celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies as prescribed u/s 7 of HMA, such as Saptapadi and Homam]
  2. Santi Deb Berma Vs Kanchan Prava Devi on 10 Oct 1990 [SC: Acceptable proof necessary that the (alleged second) marriage of the accused was celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies as prescribed u/s 7 of HMA, such as Saptapadi and Homam]
  3. Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr on 14 Oct 1999 [SC: The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 of the I.P.C.]
  4. S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001 [SC: Unless a valid marriage is proved, a second marriage stands invalid and no offence under section 494 IPC attracts]
  5. K Neelaveni Vs State Rep By Inspector of Police and Ors on 22 Mar 2010 [SC: Clear ingredients of IPC 406 and 494; HC should NOT have quashed the FIR]
  6. A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 July, 2011 [SC: Due to State amendment, IPC 494 and IPC 495 are Cognizable and Non-bailable Offences in AP (and Telangana); APHC passed a partially perverse judgment here that go against this judgment so they are NOT to be relied up on.]
  7. Kannan Vs Selvamuthukani on 30 Jan 2012 [SC: It has to be clearly established that the family members of Accused-husband knew that his divorce with his first wife was set aside before participating in the second marriage]
  8. Ushaben Vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors on 23 March, 2012 [SC: If a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of a non-cognizable offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report.]
  9. Miriyala Divya and 5 Others Vs Govt of AP on 19 September, 2014 [APHC: Magistrate can take cognizance of Sec 494 IPC complaint despite it having a rider u/s 198 CrPC. Explained]
  10. Saraswathi Vs Thirupathi and Anr on 24 Sep 2014 [MHC: Due to State amendment, as per Section 7A of HMA, tying thali, exchanging garlands are sufficient enough proof to attract IPC 494 and IPC 495 in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry]
  11. B.Parvathi Vs State of AP on 7 May, 2020 [APHC: on maintainability of IPC 494 upon the Accused No.2 and the merits of discharge petition filed before Trial Court u/s 227 CrPC but Partly perverse as it goes against A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 July, 2011 hence NOT to be relied up on.]
  12. Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020 [AllHC: No protection for Bigamers]
  13. Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021 [PHHC: No protection for Bigamers]
  14. K Jagga Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 14 Aug 2023 [APHC: Referred to the partially perverse judgment here but held that a Magistrate can take cognizance of a charge sheet for an offence of 494 IPC due to the State amendment as per A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 July, 2011]
  15. Baba Natarajan Prasad Vs M. Revathi on 15 Jul 2024 [SC: 6 months punishment for Bigamers]
  16. Deep Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026 [CALHC : Marriage executed on stamp paper has no legal validity and cannot sustain bigamy or cruelty charges under IPC.]

 


MASTER Index is here.


 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Bigamy Law in India (Sections 494 & 495 IPC)

Bigamy occurs when a person contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still legally subsisting and the spouse is alive. Under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such a marriage is void and punishable if the first marriage has not been dissolved by divorce or annulment.

A person convicted of bigamy under Section 494 IPC can face imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine. The offence is generally non-cognizable and bailable, and it is usually tried by a Magistrate of the First Class.

Section 495 IPC deals with a more serious form of bigamy. It applies when a person conceals the fact of their existing marriage from the person they are marrying again. In such cases, the punishment can extend to ten years of imprisonment and a fine.

To establish the offence of bigamy, courts generally require proof of the following elements:

  • Existence of a valid first marriage
  • The first spouse is alive and the marriage is still subsisting
  • A second marriage has been solemnized
  • The second marriage is void because the first marriage continues

No. The validity of marriage does not depend solely on registration. Courts examine whether the marriage was solemnized according to valid customs or ceremonies. Even an unregistered marriage may still be considered valid for the purpose of proving bigamy.

Under Section 198 CrPC, complaints for offences relating to marriage can generally be filed only by the aggrieved spouse. In certain circumstances, close relatives of the spouse may also file a complaint with the permission of the court.

Judicial decisions have clarified that the offence of bigamy primarily applies to the spouse who contracts the second marriage. Family members or relatives cannot ordinarily be prosecuted unless their independent criminal involvement is specifically established.

Yes. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that bigamy is a serious offence affecting the institution of marriage, as it undermines marital stability and may cause injustice to the first spouse.

Courts require clear proof that the second marriage was actually performed according to valid ceremonies or customs. Mere cohabitation or relationship is not sufficient to establish the offence of bigamy unless the essential marriage ceremonies are proved.

Bigamy offences under Section 494 IPC are generally compoundable with the permission of the court by the spouse of the accused. Courts may allow settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

While personal laws regulate marriage, the Indian Penal Code is a general criminal law. If the legal ingredients of Section 494 IPC are satisfied, prosecution for bigamy may be initiated irrespective of community, subject to applicable personal law exceptions.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted | Leave a comment

Santi Deb Berma Vs Kanchan Prava Devi on 10 Oct 1990

Posted on April 13, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held as follows…

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein assailed the impugned judgment contending that in the absence of acceptable proof that the marriage of the appellant with Namita Ghosh was celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said that the marriage had been solemnised within the ambit of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and that the finding of the High Court based on the three letters and the oral evidence to the effect that the appellant and Namita Ghosh were living together as husband and wife cannot in any way serve as proof of a valid marriage as per the Act, especially when there is no plea that the marriage was solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and usage which do not include Saptapadi. In other words, it is not the case of the respondent that the marriage was celebrated in accordance with the customs, dispensing with the ceremony of Saptapadi and usage applicable to the parties. In fact, the courts have proceeded on the footing that according to the parties the ceremony of Saptapadi is one of the essential requirements for constituting a valid marriage.
7. The High Court in the instant case has drawn an inference that all the ceremonies essential for a valid marriage had been performed on the strength of the three letters and the oral evidence as aforementioned. We, after going through the judgment of the High Court very carefully are of the opinion that the High Court is not at all justified in drawing such an inference in the absence of any reliable and acceptable evidence, in regard to the performance of Saptapadi. The result will be that the alleged marriage between the appellant and Namita Ghosh, celebrated in defiance of the law applicable to the parties is held to be a marriage not valid in law. Hence the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable and consequently we allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court and acquit the appellant.

Santi Deb Berma Vs Kanchan Prava Devi on 10 Oct 1990 (CM Ver)

Citations :[1991 AIR SC 8161991 CRI LJ 6601991 SUPP SCC 2 6161992 SCC CRI 651992 JT 1 5401991 CRLJ 0 6601992 MWN CRI 1 841991 CRILJ 6601991 SCC 6161992 MADWN CRI 1 841991 CRLJ SC 660]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/937017/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac4ce4b014971140e8d7

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=000991475000&CaseId=000991475000

https://courtverdict.com/supreme-court-of-india/santi-deb-berma-vs-smt-kanchan-prava-devi

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 494 - Not Made Out Reportable Judgement or Order Santi Deb Berma Vs Kanchan Prava Devi | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
futurestacked Future Stacked @futurestacked ·
23 Jun

Your Gmail account is not an email account.

It is the master key to your bank, your crypto, your Apple ID, your PayPal, and every password you have ever saved.

One breach and all your passwords are gone.

Lock it down with these 7 easy steps 👇

Reply on Twitter 2069354786743374317 Retweet on Twitter 2069354786743374317 115 Like on Twitter 2069354786743374317 324 X 2069354786743374317
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
thisguyknowsai Brady Long @thisguyknowsai ·
22 Jun

A German psychologist proved in 1885 that cramming erases what you learned within 48 hours. He published the fix in the same book. Almost no school on Earth has adopted it in 140 years.

His name was Hermann Ebbinghaus.

He had no lab. No funding. No colleagues.

He worked alone

Reply on Twitter 2068965021514891696 Retweet on Twitter 2068965021514891696 970 Like on Twitter 2068965021514891696 2850 X 2068965021514891696
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
factcheckapgov FactCheck.AP.Gov.in @factcheckapgov ·
22 Jun

ఎంతో ప్రతిష్టాత్మకంగా నిర్వహించి ప్రజల ఆరోగ్యం పట్ల అవగాహన కల్పించిన అంతర్జాతీయ యోగా దినోత్సవం సందర్భంగా రాష్ట్రం లో పలుచోట్ల నిర్వహించిన యోగా కార్యక్రమం పై కొందరు తప్పుడు ప్రచారం చేస్తున్నారు. ఈ కార్యక్రమం కోసం రూ. 600 కోట్లు ఖర్చు అయినట్లు చెప్పడం పూర్తిగా అసత్యం. రాష్ట్రంలో

Reply on Twitter 2068972932827869255 Retweet on Twitter 2068972932827869255 39 Like on Twitter 2068972932827869255 89 X 2068972932827869255
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jaitdp Telugu Desam Party @jaitdp ·
22 Jun

చీఫ్ మినిస్టర్.. టీచర్ అయిన వేళ

అంగన్వాడీ కేంద్రాన్ని సందర్శించిన సీఎం చంద్రబాబు కాసేపు టీచర్‌గా మారి, పిల్లల అభ్యసనం ఎలా ఉందో తెలుసుకున్నారు. ఇంగ్లీష్ ఆల్ఫాబెట్స్ చెప్పమని సీఎం అడిగేసరికి పిల్లలు చక్కగా చెప్పారు.
#ChandrababuNaidu
#AndhraPradesh

Reply on Twitter 2068873963246399922 Retweet on Twitter 2068873963246399922 75 Like on Twitter 2068873963246399922 314 X 2068873963246399922
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Checklist Before Filing Quashing Petition – Complete Practical Guide June 25, 2026
  • Affidavit of Cooperation with Investigation – Format, Legal Requirements & Sample Draft June 25, 2026
  • Vijay R. Nair Vs Lijitha on 12 Jun 2026 June 24, 2026
  • Pavul Yesu Dhasan Vs Registrar SHRC of TN and Ors on 30 Apr 2025 June 18, 2026
  • Manoj Kumar Vs Nita Bharti on 17 Mar 2026 June 17, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,950 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,491 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,377 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,825 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,203 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (2,006 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,942 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,786 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,704 views)
  • Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (1,544 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (414)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (382)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (362)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (753)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (328)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (79)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (12)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • ARN (Stockholm) on 2026-06-25 June 25, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 25, 00:00 - 05:00 UTC Jun 19, 14:18 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ARN (Stockholm) datacenter on 2026-06-25 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • Issues with granular roles for Cloudflare Tunnel and Mesh June 24, 2026
    Jun 24, 17:30 UTC Resolved - This incident has been resolved. Jun 24, 15:16 UTC Investigating - Cloudflare is investigating permission issues with resource-based granular roles where a subset of users are not being granted access to their scoped Cloudflare Tunnel and Cloudflare Mesh resources.This specifically impacts users attempting to view, configure, or manage individual […]
  • ARN (Stockholm) on 2026-06-24 June 24, 2026
    Jun 24, 05:00 UTC Completed - The scheduled maintenance has been completed. Jun 24, 00:00 UTC In progress - Scheduled maintenance is currently in progress. We will provide updates as necessary. Jun 19, 13:08 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ARN (Stockholm) datacenter on 2026-06-24 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC.Traffic might […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 35.227.38.56 | S June 24, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 19 | First: 2026-06-24 | Last: 2026-06-24
  • 34.139.125.155 | SD June 24, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 11 | First: 2026-06-24 | Last: 2026-06-24
  • 77.83.39.38 | S June 24, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 237 | First: 2026-05-12 | Last: 2026-06-24
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1599 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel