• Today: October 31, 2025

Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (AIR 1971

31 October, 2025
201
Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (1971) — Bigamy, Section 494 IPC & Essential Hindu Rites | The Law Easy

Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (AIR 1971 SC 1153)

Bigamy under Section 494 IPC needs more than words. The Court said: prove the essential Hindu rites—like homa and saptapadi—or there is no second marriage in law.

Supreme Court of India 1971 Author: Gulzar Hashmi India AIR 1971 SC 1153 Family & Criminal Law 6 min read
Hero image for Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh case explainer
```
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31 LOCATION: India PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 494 IPC, essential ceremonies, saptapadi, homa SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Hindu Marriage Act Section 7, proof of marriage, bigamy prosecution Slug: priya-bala-ghosh-v-suresh-chandra-ghosh-1971
```

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court held that for a charge of bigamy (IPC 494), the prosecution must prove that the second marriage was solemnized—that is, performed with the essential ceremonies required by the parties’ custom. Where the custom includes homa and saptapadi, absence of these ceremonies means no valid second marriage in law. A mere admission by the accused is not sufficient for conviction.

Issues

  • Must performance of essential ceremonies be specifically proved to convict under Section 494 IPC?

Rules

  • HMA Section 7(1): A Hindu marriage may be solemnized per the customary rites and ceremonies of either party.
  • HMA Section 7(2): If saptapadi is part of those rites, the marriage becomes complete and binding on taking the seventh step.
  • ‘Solemnized’ = ceremonies + due form: As explained in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande, proper ceremonies are essential to constitute marriage for IPC 494.

Facts — Timeline

Timeline view

1948: Parties marry and live together as husband and wife.

Later: Ill-treatment alleged; wife resides with her mother and brother.

31 May 1962: Husband allegedly marries Sandhya Rani.

Complaint: First wife files for bigamy under IPC 494; pandit says “Hindu rites” but does not detail essential ceremonies.

Plea: Husband says no homa or saptapadi occurred at the second marriage.

Trial: Conviction based on alleged admission in maintenance proceedings.

Appeals: Sessions Court & High Court find no proof of essential ceremonies; acquittal follows.

Timeline of events in Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (1971)

Arguments — Appellant vs Respondent

Appellant (First Wife)

  • Second marriage took place during the subsistence of the first; hence bigamy.
  • Pandit’s statement that it was per “Hindu rites” supports solemnization.
  • Husband’s admission in maintenance proceedings shows the second marriage.

Respondent (Husband)

  • No homa and no saptapadi; therefore no solemnization in law.
  • Pandit did not prove essential rites; general statements are insufficient.
  • Mere admission cannot replace proof of ceremonies for IPC 494.
Judgment-themed illustration for Priya Bala Ghosh case

Judgment

  • Supreme Court affirmed acquittal under IPC 494.
  • Relied on Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande: without proper ceremonies, there is no “solemnization”.
  • Where the parties’ custom needs homa and saptapadi, absence of these means no second marriage in law.
  • Mere admission by the accused that he contracted a second marriage is not enough for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

Essential ceremonies are the core of proof. For IPC 494, prosecution must show the second marriage was performed with due form under the parties’ custom; otherwise the offence of bigamy is not made out.

Why It Matters

The case sets a clear evidentiary standard in bigamy prosecutions. Courts will not convict without concrete proof of essential Hindu rites; broad claims or admissions will not do.

Key Takeaways

  • For IPC 494, prove solemnization with essential ceremonies.
  • HMA s.7: Custom governs; if saptapadi applies, it completes marriage at step seven.
  • Admissions ≠ proof of ceremonies.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “RITE = RIGHT”No RITE, no RIGHT to convict.

  1. Custom? Identify required rites (e.g., homa, saptapadi).
  2. Proof? Get specific evidence of performance.
  3. Charge? Without rites, no IPC 494 conviction.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can there be conviction for bigamy without proof of essential ceremonies at the alleged second marriage?

Rule

HMA s.7 (customary rites); Bhaurao (proper ceremonies & due form); IPC 494 requires a valid second marriage.

Application

No clear evidence of homa/saptapadi; pandit’s general statement inadequate; admission cannot replace proof.

Conclusion

No solemnization proved → no valid second marriage → acquittal under IPC 494 affirmed.

Glossary

Solemnization
Celebration of marriage with the ceremonies required by custom or law.
Homa
Sacred fire ritual performed in some Hindu marriages.
Saptapadi
Seven steps taken by bride and groom around the sacred fire; when required by custom, the 7th step completes the marriage.

FAQs

If the couple’s custom requires saptapadi, the marriage is complete only on the seventh step. Without it, the marriage is not proved.

No. Admissions by the accused cannot replace proof of essential ceremonies required for a valid marriage.

They should speak to which ceremonies were performed (e.g., homa, saptapadi) and how they were done—not just say “Hindu rites”.

Then the customary essential rites of that community must be proved. The rule is: prove the custom and its essential rites.
Category: Family Law Hindu Marriage Criminal Law (IPC 494)
Reviewed by The Law Easy
```
Case timeline graphic for Priya Bala Ghosh case Judgment themed image for Priya Bala Ghosh case

Comment

Nothing for now