University of Petroleum and Energy Studies

Subject - FAMILY LAW - I

S.NAGALINGAM VS SIVAGAMI
CASE ANALYSIS

SESSION -2022-2023

Submitted by Submitted to

Harsh Srivastava Mr.Rohit Ranjan

Sap id - 500094934
Diya Vashishtha
Sap id - 500094279
S. NAGALINGAM V.SIVAGAMI
CASE ANALYSIS

Introduction
CASE NAME – S. Nagalingam V. Sivagami
DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT – 31/08/2001
DECIDING COURT – Supreme Court of India
BENCH – D.P. Mohapatra, K.G. Balakrishnan

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant S. Nagalingam and the respondent Sivagami was
married to each other on September 6th 1970. They had three
children from their marriage. Later, Sivagami alleged that her
husband mistreated and tortured her due to which she left her
husbands’ house and started living with her parents.
Later, she came to know that her husband married another woman
named Kasturi on July 18th 1984.
Sivagami filed criminal complaint against her husband and six
others before the metropolitan magistrate but still all the accused
were acquitted by the trial court.
Later on, she filed criminal appeal before The High Court of
Madras. On November 1, 1996, The High Court of Madras upheld
the acquittal of six other persons who were claimed guilty along
with her husband. But then again with reference to the appellant
the High Court decided to sent the matter back to the trial court
and asked the complainant to produce the evidence for the fact
that their marriage was solemnized.
Thereafter, the priest who performed all the marriage rituals was
called and taken into the custody for cross examination. After the
cross examination, the metropolitan magistrate acquitted the
accused on March 4, 1999 in his judgment.
Again not satisfied with this decision, the respondent filed criminal
appeal before the High Court of Madras. The court held S.
Nagalingam guilty of the offence of Bigamy under 494 of IPC.
Then the appellant challenged this judgment of the High Court of
Madras before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES INVOLVED
The main issue faced by the court in this case was; whether the
second marriage in which the appellant entered into on July 18th
1984 , was valid or not as per Hindu Marriage Act as to account for
the offence of Bigamy under Section 494 of IPC.

ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES

 From the side of appellant it was argued that ‘Saptapadi’, an
essential of Hindu Marriage Act was not performed so the
marriage is not valid.
 From the side of respondent it was argued that ‘Saptapadi’ is
not essential as per the section 7 A of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Also, that second marriage was solemnized as per the
customs applicable to both the parties. This information was
also confirmed from the priest through the cross-
examination.

RATIO DECIDENDI
K. G. Balakrishnan made the ruling in this case. In this instance,
the Supreme Court agreed with the Madras High Court's
judgement to reject S. Nagalingam's appeal. The court was asked to
determine whether S. Nagalingam's union with his second wife met
the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967 inserted
Section 7-A, and the court found that the marriage in this instance
complied with its conditions.
The "Saptapadi" ceremony is necessary, but only for the partners to
whom it applies, according to the Supreme Court, for a marriage to
be solemnised. The only essential or required ceremony in this case
was the exchange of garlands, rings, or the tying of thalis, as
observed by the witness, because the marriage was performed in
line with Section 7-A of the Act. The Hindu Marriage Act as well as
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code therefore ruled the appellant
guilty of bigamy.

OBITER DICTA
Society cannot exist without its customs. Customs are typically
accepted practises that have been followed by a particular group
since the beginning of time. A custom is defined as any rule that
has been continuously followed for a long time and has been
acknowledged by the community as law in Section 3(a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act. Customs shouldn't be illogical or illegal.
Regarding the rules that apply to marriages under the Hindu
Marriage Act in this case, the Supreme Court emphasised that it is
not required for all ceremonies to be conducted by everyone. The
standards and customs that govern the marriage are taken into
consideration. For instance, it was concluded that, although it
might be in another situation, "saptapadi" is not an essential ritual
in this one.

DECISION

The decision that came was that Section 7 A was added by the
virtue of Tamil Nadu State Amendment Act, 1967. Section 7 A
applies to all the Hindus. The main reason for the inclusion of this
section is that marriage can be considered valid even it took place
in the absence of the priest.
 Parties can enter into marriage in the presence of friends and
relatives. Any ceremony such as exchange of garlands, rings etc. or
whatever is a customary practice of either of the party would be
sufficient to declare marriage valid.

JUDGMENT

Metropolitan Magistrate held that Saptapadi was not performed

that is an essential element in marriage so, therefore, second
marriage was not valid but the High Court judge reversed the
decision of magistrate claiming that as per Section 7 A of the
Hindu Marriage Act governing both the parties, Saptpadi is not an
essential ceremony for a marriage to be termed as valid so the
appellant is guilty of the offence of bigamy.

The essential ingredients mentioned under section

494 of IPC for the commission of offence of Bigamy
are –
 The first marriage must be solemnized by the
accused,
 While the first marriage was already existing the
accused entered into the second marriage,
 Both the marriage should be valid.

In this case, the verdict was delivered by K.G. Balakrishnan.

In this case, the supreme court upheld the judgment given by the
Madras High Court. The issue that was before the court was
whether the second marriage of the appellant was valid or not as
per the Hindu Marriage Act?

In this case, the court held, that the marriage was valid as per the
provision of section 7A of Hindu Marriage Act.
According to the decision of the court, Saptapadi is only essential
for a marriage to be solemnized but only to the parties to whom it
is applicable. In this Saptapadi was not essential.

Therefore it was held that the appellant had committed the offence
of bigamy under the section 494 of Indian Penal Code.

SELF ANALYSIS

In this case, when the respondent was not satisfied with the
decision of the High Court so the decision of the High Court was
challenged before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision given by the High Court
and Supreme Court held that the second marriage was valid and
that the appellant has committed the offence of bigamy.

The conditions for valid Hindu Marriage has been mentioned in

Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act.
Section 7 talks about the ceremonies for a Hindu Marriage to
conclude. In it, it has been clearly mentioned that the marriage
should be solemnized according to the rites and ceremonies of the
either party.

In this case, although the parties married without performing

‘Saptapadi’ but still their marriage was valid because ‘saptapadi’
did not come under the necessary condition for the marriage
according to their customs.

In this case, the appellant was held guilty for the offence of bigamy
because he married for the second time whilst his first marriage
was still subsisting.

Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 494 of IPC

provides punishment for the offence of bigamy.
According to us this judgment was historic judgment in the history
of Indian Judgments.
 Although there are some loopholes in the system in treating the
case of bigamy and the same must be looked into. Also, the rights
of the second wife should be given legal security under the law.

CONCLUSION
From the above facts and judgements we can conclude
that rituals and customs plays a very pivotal role in the
solemnization of marriage in case if its is a custom or
practise which they follow in particular community in
solemnization of marriage without following essential
practices of marriage . It would be termed as valid
marriage . Bigamy has been commited due to the living
spouse .
It is a landmark case which strengthen the dignity of
custom or rituals . It also showcase how india enlarge the
spirit of unity in diversity with the reasonable
classification .

References :-
1 . https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1984-
66_0.pdf
2 . Family Law book by Paras Diwan .
3 . https://blog.ipleaders.in/
4 . https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page
5 . https://www.scconline.com/