05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

DECISION - 316<br />

647<br />

the factum of her marriage with the petitioner and that she made the<br />

allegation earlier at the instance of the RTC authorities. This was<br />

enough to allow the writ petition on the ground that there is no evidence<br />

to believe that the petitioner has taken a second wife during the life<br />

time of his first wife. But the High Court examined the other limb of<br />

the controversy as to who is the first living wife of the petitioner, or to<br />

be more specific whether Jayamma was his first wife. It is contended<br />

that the petitioner had in his explanation to the charge sheet admitted<br />

that he married Jayamma according to caste custom. It is further<br />

stated that admittedly Jayamma was already married to one<br />

Munuswamy and the petitioner has been living with her, and the<br />

marriage of the petitioner with Jayamma is bigamous and it is null<br />

and void. This statement is totally devoid of any legal substance.<br />

The first marriage of the petitioner with Jayamma cannot be a<br />

bigamous union for the simple reason that it is always the second<br />

marriage, which would be deemed to be bigamous. Jayamma was<br />

already married to one Munuswamy who is stated to be living and<br />

the marriage tie between Jayamma and Munuswamy still subsists<br />

and the question that arises is whether the marriage between<br />

Jayamma and the petitioner is a valid marriage in the eye of law. It is<br />

an accepted principle of law that in order to bring home the charge of<br />

bigamy or for that matter to prove the guilt of the accused person<br />

under sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved that the<br />

first marriage is legally valid. The marriage during the subsistence<br />

of a former marriage and during the lifetime of the first husband of<br />

Jayamma i.e. Munuswamy is no marriage at all. At the most it may be<br />

a case of adultery involving moral turpitude. The association with the<br />

other countless women may reflect upon the character of the petitioner<br />

as one who is of a licentious nature, but there is no substance in a<br />

finding that he has been entertaining two wives at a time.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!