Dismissed

Nagnath Kalyanappa Kadage v. Sau. Dasubai Nagnath Kadage and Anothers

Bombay HC30 Jul 2008REVN/307/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the application against a conviction under Section 495 of IPC for bigamy. The court held that the accused suppressed his first wife while marrying the complainant via the Special Marriage Act, justifying the conviction and sentence imposed by courts below.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision application dismissed; applicant-accused ordered to surrender to bail bonds forthwith.

Nagnath Kalyanappa Kadage Vs Sau. Dasubai Nagnath Kadage… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 307 OF 1998

¶4

 Shri Nagnath Kalyanappa Kadage
 Adult, Occ. Nil,
 resident of Solapur ..Applicant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 1. Sau. Dasubai Nagnath Kadage
 Age 26, Occ. Household,
 Plot No. 124, Kamlanagar,
 Near Nehru Nagar, Solapur

¶7

 2. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr. N.J. Patil for applicant.
 Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J.

¶10

 Dated: July 30, 2008.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶12

 1. The applicant faced trial for an offence
 punishable under Section 495 of IPC in RCC No. 101 of
 1994 filed by the present respondent no.1 - Smt.
 Dasubai Nagnath @ Nagesh Kadage. The learned 4th JMFC
 at Solapur was pleased to convict the
 applicant-accused for the offence punishable under
 Section 495 of IPC and he was directed to suffer

¶13

:2:

¶14

 imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
 Rs.1000/-, in default thereof to undergo SI for one
 month. The accused challenged the said order of
 conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of
 1997, which came to be dismissed by the learned
 Sessions Judge on 22/12/1998. Hence this Revision
 Application.

¶15

 2. The complainant had submitted before the trial
 court that the accused married her on 15/4/1991 before
 the Registrar of Marriages and the marriage was
 registered under the Special Marriage Act. She stayed
 with him for more than two years and came to know that
 the accused was already married to one Sunita in June
 1987 and this fact he had suppressed from the
 complainant when the complainant and the accused
 performed marriage on 15/4/1991. The accused denied
 his second marriage with the complainant and in his
 defence stated that Sunita was his legally wedded wife
 and the marriage had taken place on 10/6/1987. The
 accused denied his second marriage with the
 complainant. Before the trial court, the complainant

¶16

:3:

¶17

 examined three witnesses i.e. the complainant herself

¶18

 (PW 1), Sonabai Chavan (PW 2) and Daudsaheb Abdul (PW

¶19

 3). PW 2 Sonabai Chavan was the grandmother of the
 complainant and PW 3 Daudsaheb Abdul was the record
 keeper from the Registrar’s office. Whereas the
 accused placed reliance on the decree passed in the
 Civil Suit filed by him i.e. RCS No. 121 of 1992. A
 copy of the said judgment was placed on record at
 Exh.23. In the suit the complainant was one of the
 parties and the suit was decided ex parte so far as
 she is concerned. In the said suit a declaration is

¶20

 given that Sunita was the legally wedded wife of the
 accused and the marriage was performed on 10/6/1987.
 The complainant did not dispute the factum of marriage
 between accused and Sunita as performed on 110/6/1987.
 The accused, on the other hand, had denied his second

¶21

 marriage with the complainant and as per the
 complainant the second marriage had taken place on
 15/4/1991.

¶22

 3. The complainant in her testimony stated that
 the accused and she were neighbours and they decided

¶23

:4:

¶24

 to get married. Both of them went to the Registrar of
 Marriage, gave notice of the marriage to begin and
 after the notice period was over, on 15/4/1991 they
 got married by exchanging garlands in the Registrar’s
 office. After the marriage, they stayed together for
 about three years. Her grandmother Sonabai Chavan was
 one of the witnesses of the said marriage. Marriage
 Certificate at Exh.22 was placed on record. PW 3
 Daudsaheb Abdul confirmed the Marriage Certificate.
 The said witness had come with the register of
 marriages as well as a copy of the notice published on
 14/3/1991 about the intended marriage of the
 complainant with the accused. Exh.40 was a copy of
 the notice and Exh.41 was the certified copy of the
 Marriage Certificate prepared under Section 13 of the
 Special Marriage Act, 1954. On the Marriage
 Certificate he took the signatures of both the
 applicant as well as the accused and also the
 signature of Shri Deshpande, Marriage Officer. Though
 PW 3 was not personally present for the marriage, the
 documents placed on record i.e. Exhs.22, 40 and 41
 proved that the complainant and accused were married
 on 15/4/1991 in the office of the Registrar of

¶25

:5:

¶26

 Marriages, the marriage was registered under Section
 13 and the procedure as required under Sections 11 and
 12 of the said Act was duly followed for solemnisation
 of the marriage.

¶27

 4. The defence of the accused was based on the
 decree passed in RCC No. 121 of 1992. Admittedly the
 said decree was ex parte as far as the complainant is
 concerned and even otherwise in the said Regular Civil
 Suit it was held that Sunita was the legally wedded
 wife of the accused and the marriage was performed on
 10/6/1987. The complainant, on the other hand, duly
 proved her marriage with the accused on 15/4/1991 and
 the marriage was registered under the Special Marriage
 Act, 1954. Both the courts below have concurrently
 held that the complainant and accused were married on
 15/4/1991, the procedure as set out under Sections 11
 and 12 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was followed
 in solemnizing the said marriage and Certificate under
 Section 13 of the said Act was issued after having
 registered the said marriage. It is thus clear that
 when the accused performed the second marriage with

¶28

:6:

¶29

 the complainant on 15/4/1991 he suppressed his first
 marriage with Sunita and, therefore, he has been
 rightly convicted and sentenced. No interference is
 called for in the impugned order.

¶30

 5. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed.
 Rule is discharged. The applicant-accused to

¶31

 surrender to his bail bonds forthwith.

¶32

(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Nagnath Kalyanappa Kadage v. Sau. Dasubai Nagnath Kadage and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagnath Kalyanappa Kadage v. Sau. Dasubai Nagnath Kadage and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suday Narayan Kargutkar Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

Suday Narayan Kargutkar Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

M/S Ishwar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ashok Chadha and Ors.

Jagdish Gangaram Fansiya Vs the State of Maharshtra

M/S. Tyabji Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abid Bahadur Chaudhary and Anr.

Sudhakar Bhoiaya Shetty Vs Sudamrao Chandrakant Gaikwad and Ors.