For various reasons, delay gets injected into Court proceedings especially when challenging a lower Court order/judgment before an appellate Court.
Supreme Court:
Category: Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications
Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX Cases
Here are the list of cases filed by these people…
- Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 24 Mar 2016 – In a ‘Annulment of marriage due to consummation of marriage by wife’ case, High Court granted opportunity to file the Written Statement/Counter.
- Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 16 Jun 2020 – DVC was part allowed due to bad cross-examination.
- Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 31 Aug 2021 – Perjury allowed.
- (Master Page for Perjury Judgments here)
- Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 03 Mar 2022 – Compromised and settled. All cases withdrawn.
Agreements against Public Policy are Void
A small collections of Judgments which state that, All/any agreements against Public Policy are Void.
Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce
A (legal) cancer that is (Multiple) Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce dealt by various Courts.
- Ruchi Agarwal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors on 5 Nov 2004 [SC: Once MCD done with agreement on no future claims, maintenance cannot be claimed later]
- Ganesh Vs Sudhirkumar Shrivastava and Ors on 22 Apr 2019 [SC: A Mother getting MCD could not have waived off the right to maintenance of her daughter from her father]
- Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 [SC: Lots of guidelines for the menace of maintenance litigation in India]
- Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021 [Calcutta HC: Referred to Larger (Division Bench)]
Index of Maintenance judgments under Hindu Marriage Act is here.
Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC
A short collection of Bigamy Judgments u/s 494 IPC/495 IPC.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.]
- 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]
- 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.]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.]
- Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020 [AllHC: No protection for Bigamers]
- Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021 [PHHC: No protection for Bigamers]
- 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]
- Baba Natarajan Prasad Vs M. Revathi on 15 Jul 2024 [SC: 6 months punishment for Bigamers]
- 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.
CrPC 156(3) Judgments
Here is a collection of judgments pertaining to utilization of CrPC 156(3).
- Suresh Chand Jain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 10 Jan 2001 [SCI: The Complainant need not be examined on Oath by the Magistrate in an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.]
- Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 7 Dec 2007 [SC: Magistrate has power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police; Sequence is 154(1), then 154(3) and then 156(3)]
- Jagannath Verma and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 23 Sep 2014 [All HC: An order of the magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397]
- Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015 [SCI: Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate; affidavit was mandatory in order to attach propriety and genuineness to the application preferred under Section 156 (3) of CrPC, it was ought to be supported with an affidavit so as to justify the set of allegations]
- Sabiya Begum Malka Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 May 2016 [All HC: Costs imposed on police for not filing FIR despite Orders u/s 156(3)]
- Commercial Toyota Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr on 31 Jul 2019 [Uttarakhand HC: Non-filing of affidavit along with the application under S. 156(3) of CrPC held to be a curable defect]
- Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of MP on 25 Mar 2021 [MP HC: Follow Sakiri Vasu, 154(1), 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C.]
- MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021 [SCI: There is no scope for examining the complainant (or any witnesses) in a 156(3) CrPC proceeding, since that stage is pre-cognizance of any cognizable offence]
- Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 [SC: Relying on Priyanka Srivastava decision, Supreme Court added that Magistrate has to hear the reasons for refusal to register FIR from IO before passing orders u/s 175(3) BNSS or 156(3) Cr.P.C.]
- Anurag Bhatnagar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 25 Jul 2025 [SC: Follow Sakiri Vasu, 154(1), 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C.]
NBW Judgments
Here are few cases which can come handy in case a dumbo trial court PO (presiding officer) passes a Non-bailable Warrant for your arrest.
- P.A.Saleem Vs State of Madras on 13 Jul 1994 [Madras High Court – Revision is available if Recall of NBW is dismissed]
- Bhagwan Premchandani Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 4 Nov 1997 [AP High Court]
- Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007 [Supreme Court]
- Arunkumar N Chaturvedi Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 24 Dec 2013 [Bombay High Court]
- S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016 [Madras High Court: The Trial court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused]
- Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018 [Delhi District Court – Revision is available if Recall of NBW is dismissed, relies on P.A.Saleem]
- Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 07 Oct 2021 [SC: The Trial court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused]
- R.Sundar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 12 Oct 2023 [Madras High Court: The Trial court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused; relies on Satender Kumar Antil]
- Venus Remedies Ltd and Ors Vs State of Karnataka on 30 Oct 2023 [Kar High Court: The Trial court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused; relies on Satender Kumar Antil]
- Arige Venkataramaiah Vs State of Telangana on 20 Dec 2023 [Telangana HC: The Trial court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused; relies on Satender Kumar Antil]
- Sharif Ahmed and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 01 May 2024 [SC: Non-bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence; Totally ignored Satender Kumar Antil]
Maintenance granted only for a limited Time Period
A list of decisions where maintenance was granted for only a limited time.
Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju Vs State of AP and Ors
On his birthday 14 May 2021, Member of Parliament Sri Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju was arrested from his home at Hyderabad by the AP CID Police and brought to CID office at Guntur. On the intervening night between 14th and 15th May 2021, he was subjected to the 3rd degree police torcher by the AP CID Police on the instruction of their Higher up who may be boot-licking their political masters. Then a slew of legal actions were put to motion…
On 19 May 2021,
The Police officials who tried to act smart and favor their pay-master Chief Minister of AP by not implementing the Order of High Court, got served with Contempt of Court notices. The High Court also showcased the shenanigans of the Superintendent of the Government General Hospital, Guntur who is also the wife of the head of the ruling party’s IT Cell also, who did not finish the examination of accused in time and made the High Court wait until 6PM, finally issuing a notice why action should not be taken under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act.
The AAG got rap on his butt from Justice Lalitha Kanneganti by saying that he could be referred to Bar Council for taking appropriate action, which may involve immediate suspension from Bar Association which will render him a non-advocate during suspension period and eventually getting kicked out of the Legal profession itself, all for the chamchagiri he intended to do to the Chief Minister of AP.
Hilarious stuff!!
On 21 May 2021,
Supreme Court granted bail with usual conditions.
In our view, considering the injuries as reported by the Medical Board of the Army Hospital, we can prima facie form an opinion that the appellant may have been ill-treated while in police custody. Further, we are of the opinion that the charges against the appellant are not such in which custodial interrogation would be required as all the statements made by the appellant are on record and the FIR has been lodged only after a detailed enquiry by the State CID. Considering the totality of the circumstances and also the health position of the appellant, specially that the appellant has undergone heart bypass surgery in December 2020, which is not denied by the respondent and has also been noted in the report of the Medical Board of the Army Hospital, we deem it just and proper that the appellant be enlarged on bail
On 17 Jun 2021,
On the request of the petitioner’s advocate, AP High Court disposed of this petition as no further action is required.
Change the Advocate who earlier filed vakalatnama
Here are few case laws to support your effort in changing an advocate who is already on record of a Court in your cases.
(Smooth way is through issuing a termination letter discharging existing Advocate from case who earlier filed vakalatnama and communicating the same to advocate)
- R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
- New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs A.K.Saxena on 7 Nov 2003 [SC]
- C.V. Sudhindra and Ors. Vs Divine Light School For Blind [KarHC]
- Karnataka Power Distribution Vs M RajaShekar on 2 Dec 2016 [NOC not required to engage new advocate, if the advocate was discharged by client, following the procedure established by law]
- Bhagya and Ors Vs Jayalakshmi and Ors on 13 Feb 2019 [Only after the advocate was discharged by client, following the due procedure established by law, a client can engage a new advocate]
Sample termination letter to get rid of earlier advocate who earlier filed vakalatnama. Customize it please.
