AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.R. Vora, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. D. R. Dave for the applicants and learned APP Mr. M.R. Mengdey for the respondent No. 1-State. While rule is served upon the respondent No. 2.
As per the brief facts of the present case that the respondent No. 2-Manjulaben, wife of applicant No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad which was registered as Criminal Case No. 2734 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint by Manjulaben that her husband-accused No. 1, applicant No. 1 herein married to accused No. 2-Rekhaben, applicant No. 2 herein with abetment of accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 Jayantilal and Shardaben parents of accused No. 2-Rekhaben. It was alleged that before two years of filing of the complaint, complainant-Manjulaben was driven out by the applicant No. 1-husband and eventhough her marriage with applicant No. 1 was subsisting, applicant No. 1 her husband married to accused No. 2-Rekhaben, applicant No. 2 herein and thereby committed the offence u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of accused Nos. 3 and 4. The complaint came to be filed on 03.12.2001. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed to register the complaint and to issue summons to the accused i.e. applicants herein and, therefore, this petition with a request to quash the Criminal Case No. 2734 of 2001 filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 18 at Ahmedabad along with the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to issue summons against the present applicants.
While minutely going through the record and evaluating the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants as well as learned APP Mr. M.R. Mengdey for the respondent No. 1-State, it clearly appears that the complaint came to be filed on 03.12.2001. While as per the case of the applicants, the marriage between Manjulaben and Mahendrabhai came to an end by deed of divorce dated 05.07.1998 executed at Thane. Original copy of such deed in Marathi, is placed on record as Annexure-B to this petition and translated copy in English is also placed on record. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted certified copy of petition and Family Suit No. 258 of 2007 along with the decree passed in the said Family Suit. The said certified copy is taken on record. Now according to the Family Suit No. 258 of 2007, Manjulaben, respondent No. 2 herein and the complainant sought a declaration before the Family Court at Ahmedabad that her marriage with the applicant No. 1-Mahendrabhai be declared as ended on the strength of deed of divorce which was executed on 05.07.1998 between the husband Mahendrabhai and wife Manjulaben, since the deed of divorce was executed, according to the custom prevailing in their caste. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Ahmedabd vide judgment dated 13.04.2007 was pleased to declare that the deed of divorce executed between the petitioner i.e. wife Manjulaben and the respondent i.e. husband Mahendrabhai on 05.07.1998 was legal and valid and it was further declared by the Family Court that the petitioner and the respondent had already dissolved their marriage according to the custom prevailing in their caste by executing the deed of divorce on 05.07.1998 and from that date, the relationship between Manjulaben and Mahendrabhai as of husband and wife came to an end.
Since the complaint is filed on 03.12.2001 about bigamy u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code making grievance that husband-Mahendrabhai was living with accused No. 2-Rekhaben for two years before filing of the complaint and when now it is very clear that on 05.07.1998, divorce took place between Manjulaben and Mahendrabhai, the question of husband living with second wife, subsisting first marriage with Manjulaben, would not arise at all. In this view of the matter, the period which the complainant refers here alleging bigamy against the accused No. 1-husband, is the period after the divorce between the parties came into existence, therefore, there is no substance in the complaint of bigamy filed by the wife.
In above view of the matter, this petition deserves to be allowed and it is, therefore, directed that Criminal Case No. 2734 of 2001 filed by respondent No. 2 against the present applicants pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 18, at Ahmedabad is hereby quashed along with the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate upon the complainant on 03.12.2001 to issue summons against the applicants is hereby also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.