Site icon Legal Vidhiya

S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (2001) 7 SCC 487 

Admin
Spread the love

CASE NO.:Appeal (crl.) 882 of 2001

CITATION(2001) 7 SCC 487 l, 2001 SCC online 1032 
DATE OF JUDGMENT31/08/2001
HONORABLE COURTSupreme Court of India (SC)
APPELLANTS. NAGALINGAM
RESPONDENTSIVAGAMI
BENCHD.P. MOHAPATRA & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN JJ
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTMr. R. SUNDRAVARDAN, ADV.
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTSIVAGAMI APPEARED IN PERSON

PREFACE

The case of “S. Nagalingamv. Sivagami( 2001) 7 SCC 487 ” was the corner judgement related to the family Law in India history in which the Supreme Court upheld the all judgement which considered essential observances similar as “ Saptapadi ” to be performed by parties in confirmation of their marriages with several exceptions. If there’s any state correction in any enactment also similar correction is applicable over the people of similar areas.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

  1.  S. Nagalingam and SIVAGAMI married on 6- 9- 1970 and had three children from that marriage. The replier  contended that the complainant started ill- treating her and physically tortured. Due  similar conditioning of the complainant as well as his  mama , she left her  connubial home and started staying with her parents
  2. Later, the replier came to know that the complainant had entered into a marriage with another woman on 18-6-1984, by the name of Kasturi, and that the marriage was performed in a marriage hall at Thiruthani by exchange of garland.
  3. The replier  also filed a felonious complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate against the complainant and six others. All the  indicted were acquitted by the trial court on the ground of the “ Saptapadi ” essential  form wasn’t taken place so the marriage is invalid. Aggrieved Thereby, the replier filed Felonious AppealNo. 67 of 1992 before the High Court of Madras. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 1-11-1996 upheld the  vindication of indicted 2- 7, but as regards the  vindication of the complainant, the matter was remitted to the trial court permitting the plaintiff to adduce  substantiation regarding the manner in which the marriage was praised. Upon remand, the  clerk( PW 3), who’s  contended to have performed the marriage of the complainant with the alternate  indicted, Kasturi, on18-6-1984, was further examined and the complainant was allowed further cross- examination.
  4.  The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his judgment dated 4-3-1999 acquitted the  accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the replier preferred a felonious appeal before the High Court of Madras. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the complainant had committed the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC and condemned the complainant for this offen after that complainant filled  solicitation in the Supreme Court

ISSUE RAISED

  1. Whether the alternate marriage between S. Nagalingam and Kasturi, on 18.6.1984 was a valid marriage under Hindu Law so as to constitute an Offence under Section 494 IPC? 
  2. Whether “ Saptapadi ” and other essential rituals to be Performed to constitute a valid marriage?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

  1. That as per the  substantiation of PW- 3, it’s dear that “ Saptapadi ”, an important ritual which forms part of the marriage  form, wasn’t performed and  thus, there was no valid Marriage in  agreement with Hindu  solemnities. 

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

  1. That the complainant had contracted the alternate marriage and this marriage was solemnised in  agreement with Hindu  solemnities on 18-6-1984 at RCC Mandapam, Thiruthani Devasthanam.
  2. That according to the Tamil Nadu State Amendment Act, 1967 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Sec 7A makes “ saptapadi ” wasn’t essential as prove by cross examination of PW 3, so Marriage is valid. 

JUDGEMENT

  1. Court held that the as the  substantiation in this case as given by PW- 3  easily shows that there was a valid marriage in  agreement  vittles of Section 7- A of the Hindu Marriage Act. PW 3 admitted that the bride brought the “ thirumangalam ” and tied it around the neck of the bridegroom and  later both changed libraries three times and the father of the bridegroom stated that he was giving his son to “ kanniyathan ” on behalf of and in the  substantiation of “ agnidevi ” and the father of the bride  entered and accepted the “ kanniyathan ”. PW 3 also admitted that they performed the marriage in  agreement with the customs applicable to both of them. The  vittles ofSec. 7A, of HMA( State correction)  fitted  in the  enactment are applicable and there was a valid marriage between the complainant and Kasturi.
  2. “Saptapadi” was held to be an essential  form for a valid marriage only in cases where it was admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them that was an essential  form. But complainant in the instant case, had no  similar case that “ saptapadi ” was an essential  form for a valid marriage as per the  particular law applicable whereas the  vittles contained in Section 7- A are applicable to the parties. Therefore the marriage between the complainant and the alternate  indicted Kasturi was valid marriage. Thus, it was proved that the complainant had committed the offence of bigamy as it was done during the subsistence of his earlier marriage held on 6-9-1970 

CONCLUSION

With the view of this case the  observances play an important  part for the  confirmation of marriage as given in the provision of HMA, 1955 U/ S 7 and Section 17 of the act  easily provide punishment for bigamy U/ S 494 and 495 of IPC, 1860. In the present case of S. Nagalingamv. Sivagami, Sivagami’s hubby was held  shamefaced by the offence of Bigamy under IPC because he married the alternate  woman Kasturi indeed the 1st  woman was living at that time and decision of honorable High Court and Supreme court is valid in view to  entitlement justice. 

REFERENCE

  1. https://legalvidhiya.com/s-nagalingam-v-s-sivagami-2001-7-scc-487/ 
  2. https://lawplanet.in/s-nagalingam-v-sivagami-case-summary-2001/

This Article is Author by ROHIT ATTRI PUPIL OF KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA; Legal Research Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version