Skip to content


Khushalchand Janki Prasad Vs. Shankar Pandey Gaya Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Criminal Case No. 21 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1963MP126; 1963CriLJ444
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 417(3); Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Child Marriage Restraint Act - Sections 6
AppellantKhushalchand Janki Prasad
RespondentShankar Pandey Gaya Prasad
Appellant AdvocateG.M. Kekre, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateRajendra Singh, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredGanpatrao Devaji v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....are proved it is not a marriage in the eye of law. in the course of the discussion he has pointed out that khushalchand (p. w. 1) and ramlal (p. w. 3) merely stated about 'phera' ceremony, but not about kanyadan and viwah hom.3. at this stage i have only to see whether the appellant's case is presentable and whether there is a possibility of the court setting aside the order of acquittal on the ground that there are susbtantial and compelling reasons. having regard to section 7 of the hindu marriage act, 1955, (the alleged marriage in this case was performed on 21-8-1960) it is arguable whether want of evidence as to viwah hom and kanyadan disproves a marriage and having regard to the statement of shankarlal, dated 26-7-1961 in criminal trial no. 1059 of 1960, and the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a petition under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondents were convicted under Section 6 of the Child Marriage Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven days and fine of Rs. 100/- each. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandia, acquitted the accused.

2. The only ground of acquittal is that the complainant could hot prove the fact of the marriage havingbeen celebrated within the meaning of the Hindu Law. Relying on the observations in Ganpatrao Devaji v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Nag 174, he has held that unless Kanya-dan, Vivah Hom and Saptapadi are proved it is not a marriage in the eye of law. In the course of the discussion he has pointed out that Khushalchand (P. W. 1) and Ramlal (P. W. 3) merely stated about 'Phera' ceremony, but not about Kanyadan and Viwah Hom.

3. At this stage I have only to see whether the appellant's case is presentable and whether there is a possibility of the Court setting aside the order of acquittal on the ground that there are susbtantial and compelling reasons. Having regard to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (the alleged marriage in this case was performed on 21-8-1960) it is arguable whether want of evidence as to Viwah Hom and Kanyadan disproves a marriage and having regard to the statement of Shankarlal, dated 26-7-1961 in Criminal Trial No. 1059 of 1960, and the prosecution evidence as to Saptapadi and also having regard to the fact that Ganpatrao's decision (AIR 1932 Nag 174) was in a civil matter, I think that this is a fit case where special leave to appeal must be granted.

4. This petition is allowed. Special leave underSection 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure isgranted to the petitioner to appeal from the order ofthe Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //