This strange case tied Supreme Court up in knots

NEW DELHI: Such was the complex web of relationships woven by a couple in their marital life that even the Supreme Court got tired of finding a solution within the legal framework and asked them to compromise.

'A' married 'R' in August 1991. A year later, he moved a Ropar court in Punjab for divorce. 'R' appeared in court on October 8, 1992. A day later, the husband withdrew the petition and they resumed their conjugal life.

Six months later, 'A' filed a divorce petition in a Chandigarh court and did not inform the wife. The court granted an ex-parte divorce decree on January 8, 1994. He kept it a secret and continued to live with 'R'. Armed with the divorce decree, 'A' married 'S' on June 23, 1994.

'R' moved a Chandigarh court on June 29, 1994 challenging the ex-parte divorce decree. The trial court annulled the divorce and restored R's marriage with 'A'. 'R' slapped rape charges under Section 376 of IPC against 'A' alleging that he continued having sexual relationship with her from January 8, 1994 till he married 'S' on June 23, 1994, misrepresenting to her that the marriage continued though he had obtained an ex-parte divorce decree.

A trial court at Kharar rejected her complaint saying it was no rape as the annulment of divorce decree had restored her marriage as if there was no break in between. The Punjab and Haryana high court and later the Supreme Court upheld the Kharar court's decision.

Unwilling to come to terms with her husband's deceitful acts, 'R' moved the trial court at Kharar against 'A' seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 493 (cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage) and Section 494 (second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage). This too was dismissed by the trial court and the HC did not entertain her appeal. She moved the Supreme Court in 2008.

A bench of Justices J S Khehar and S A Bobde had a difficult time attempting to untangle the knots in the marital relationship. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Khehar said, "We are satisfied that the charge under Section 493 against husband is not made out because he could not have deceived the wife of the existence of a

'lawful' marriage, when lawful marriage indeed existed between the parties during the period under reference."

However, the bench said that though the charges under Section 494 survived, it was a compoundable offence. The bench asked 'R' whether she was interested in compounding the cause.

The bench was informed that in the meantime, 'A' had fathered two children from 'S' and that 'R' too had married again and had a son from her second marriage, further complicating the already twisted relationship.

Fortunately, 'R' agreed for a compromise and consented for compounding the offence under Section 494 against 'A'. The bench said, "In view of the consent expressed by the appellant, 'R', to this court through her counsel, we hereby direct the compounding of complaint made by 'R' with reference to Section 494 of IPC. We direct 'A' to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh as compensation to 'R'."

Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.