'Contractual Marriage' On Stamp Paper Is Nullity Under Hindu Law, Cannot Form Basis For Bigamy Or Cruelty Charges: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings alleging bigamy and matrimonial cruelty against a man after holding that a “marriage” based solely on signing a non-judicial stamp paper is not recognised under Hindu law and cannot form the foundation for prosecution under Sections 494 or 498A of the IPC.Justice Uday Kumar observed that a contractual arrangement recorded on stamp...
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings alleging bigamy and matrimonial cruelty against a man after holding that a “marriage” based solely on signing a non-judicial stamp paper is not recognised under Hindu law and cannot form the foundation for prosecution under Sections 494 or 498A of the IPC.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that a contractual arrangement recorded on stamp paper cannot substitute the legally mandated rites and ceremonies required for solemnising a Hindu marriage. The Court held that such a “contractual marriage” is a legal nullity and lacks the essential elements required to create a legally valid marital relationship.
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that her relationship with the petitioner had transformed into a matrimonial bond on June 27, 2011. However, in the FIR she stated that the “marriage” was solemnised only through execution of signatures on a non-judicial stamp paper. The parties allegedly cohabited for about three years, after which the petitioner entered into a registered marriage with another woman in July 2014. Aggrieved by this subsequent marriage, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings alleging offences under Sections 494 (bigamy) and 498A (cruelty) of the IPC.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the prosecution was fundamentally flawed because the existence of a legally valid first marriage is a pre-condition for invoking Section 494 IPC. Since the complainant herself admitted that the alleged marriage was based only on a stamp paper agreement, it did not satisfy the statutory requirements under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandates solemnisation through customary rites and ceremonies.
The State opposed the quashing plea, arguing that an FIR is not expected to contain every detail of the case and that witness statements recorded during investigation suggested a “temple marriage”. According to the prosecution, these conflicting versions raised disputed questions of fact that should be examined during trial.
The High Court, however, found that the foundation of the prosecution itself was legally untenable. Referring to Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court reiterated that a Hindu marriage must be solemnised in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies and that a contractual arrangement executed on stamp paper is not a recognised mode of marriage under the statute.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC requires proof that the first marriage was validly solemnised. In the absence of such solemnisation, a prosecution for bigamy cannot be sustained.
The Court also examined whether the charge under Section 498A IPC could survive in the absence of a legally valid marriage. While the State relied on Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, where the Supreme Court adopted a broad interpretation of the term “husband”, the High Court clarified that the principle applies to marriages that are technically void but performed through ceremonies. It does not extend to relationships that are legally non-existent from the outset.
Observing that the prosecution's attempt to introduce a “temple marriage” during investigation was inconsistent with the complainant's own version in the FIR, the Court held that the case rested on a “legal mirage”. It ruled that compelling the petitioner to face trial on the basis of a relationship not recognised by law would amount to abuse of the criminal process.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising from Baruipur Police Station Case No. 1427 of 2014 and discharged the petitioner. At the same time, it clarified that the complainant would remain free to pursue remedies available under other statutes, including the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if she was so advised.
Case: DEEP DEY -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Case No: CRR 2190 OF 2017