Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v State Of Maharashtra

AIR 1965 SC 1564

Facts

Bhaurao Lokhande married Kamlabai during the lifetime of his first wife, Indubai. He was

convicted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. He appealed to the Supreme Court by

special leave.

Issue

Whether the second marriage needs to be solemnized to fall within the ambit of Section 494 of the

Indian Penal Code?

Holding

The second marriage needs to be duly solemnized to fall under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage

Act and as a consequence become an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

Rationale

For the question of voidness of marriage to arise, the marriage first needs to be a valid marriage. If

not valid, the marriage cannot be declared void. In order to fall under Section 17 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, the second marriage needs to be solemnized and to be solemnized, it needs to

be performed with proper ceremonies and due form. If not solemnized, the marriage will not satisfy

the first condition of Section 17 and therefore, it cannot be declared void. As a consequence of this,

it will not be an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, the court held that

the second marriage was not solemnized, as two essential ceremonies, Sapatapadi and invocation

before fire, were not performed. Other essential ceremonies for a Gandhavara marriage were also

not performed. Just because the same had not been performed for a few years, does not establish a

new custom under Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Since the second marriage was not

solemnized, it could not be declared void under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and

hence, Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code will not apply to the same.

1
Shivani Maheshwari

20151077

BBA LLB Sec B