While discharging a man booked in case registered under Sections 494 and 498A of the IPC, the Calcutta High Court has held that a contractual marriage on stamp paper is a legal nullity under Hindu Law. The High Court further held that strict proof of solemnization of the first marriage is mandatory for a prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC.

The revisional application filed before the High Court dealt with a recurring conflict in matrimonial jurisprudence relating to the distinction between a socially recognised cohabitation and a legally solemnised marriage.

The petitioner sought the extraordinary relief of quashing a criminal proceeding involving grave charges of Bigamy (Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code) and Matrimonial Cruelty (Section 498A of the IPC).

The Single Bench of Justice Uday Kumar held, “On the basis of the above discussions, the following law points emerge :

a) A "contractual marriage" on stamp paper is a legal nullity under Hindu Law.

b) Strict proof of solemnization of the first marriage is mandatory for a prosecution under Section 494 IPC.

c) The status of "husband" under Section 498A IPC cannot be fastened upon a party where the union is legally nonexistent ab initio.”

Advocate Rituparna De Ghosh represented the Petitioner while Addl. Public Prosecutor Anasuya Sinha represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The de-facto complainant (second Opposite Party) asserted that her relationship with the Petitioner was transformed into a matrimonial bond in 2011. She initially stated that the marriage was solemnized solely through the execution of signatures on a non-judicial stamp paper. Following this execution, the parties reportedly cohabited for approximately three years. During the period of domesticity, it was alleged that the petitioner induced the complainant into a belief of marital security. This belief was allegedly shattered, when the Petitioner entered into a formal, registered marriage with another woman which was supported by a valid Marriage Certificate.

Aggrieved by this subsequent union, the complainant initiated the case. It was observed that during the investigation, the prosecution sought to bridge the legal gap by introducing witness statements alleging a temple marriage.

Reasoning

Referring to the statutory mandates under Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Bench explained that while Section 5 lays down the essential conditions for a valid marriage (monogamy, mental capacity, age, and prohibited degrees), Section 7 dictates its very soul which is the form of the union. “A marriage by signature on an agreement paper is a mode of union unrecognized under this Act. It is a procedure unknown to Hindu Law; consequently, a "contractual marriage" is a legal nullity. It lacks the "legal alchemy" required to transform cohabitation into matrimony. To hold otherwise would be to grant a piece of stamp paper the sanctity of the Saptapadi”, it stated.

Dealing with the law regarding Section 494 IPC, the Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (1965) wherein it has been observed that the word "marries" in Section 494 IPC implies a marriage celebrated with proper ceremonies and unless the marriage is "solemnized" in the legal sense, it cannot be said to be a marriage for the purposes of the penal section. “Since the complainant admitted the union was based on a "stamp paper," the requirement of solemnization is absent, making a charge of bigamy a legal impossibility”, it added.

“A secular contract on stamp paper does not clothe the parties with the status of "spouse" for the purpose of Section 498A”, it held while also adding, “Upon a microscopic evaluation of the material on record, this Court finds that the edifice of the prosecution rests upon a "legal mirage." The shift from a "stamp paper marriage" in the FIR to a "temple marriage" in subsequent witness statements is a transparent, albeit clumsy, attempt to cure a fatal legal infirmity. Such an afterthought fails to inspire confidence.”

As per the Bench, if the alleged mode of marriage through the signing of a contract is not recognised in law, the subsequent acts cannot constitute the offences charged. The Bench was of the view that compelling the petitioner to run the gauntlet of a criminal trial based on a relationship that is a legal non-entity would be a manifest failure of justice.

Thus, quashing the proceeding, the Bench discharged the Petitioner and cancelled his bail bonds.

Cause Title: Deep Dey v. State of West Bengal (Case No.: CRR 2190 of 2017)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Rituparna De Ghosh, Souryadeep Ghosh

Respondent: Addl. Public Prosecutor Anasuya Sinha, Advocate Dipankar Paramanick

Click here to read/download Order




Calcutta High CourtJustice Uday Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.