Supreme Court Upholds Second Wife's Rights in Polygamy Case, Emphasizes Women's Protection

A Subash Babu Versus State of AP & Anr.

A Subash Babu Versus State of AP & Anr. - 2011 AIR 3031 Issues Involved:
1. Legality of taking cognizance of offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC based on a police report.
2. Validity of the complaint under Section 498A IPC.
3. Applicability of state amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The status of the second wife as an aggrieved person under Sections 494 and 495 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Taking Cognizance of Offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC Based on a Police Report:

The appellant argued that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC on the basis of the police report because these offences are non-cognizable under the central legislation. However, the State of Andhra Pradesh amended the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, making these offences cognizable. The Supreme Court held that the amendment made by the State Legislature, which received Presidential assent, prevails in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC are cognizable in Andhra Pradesh, and the Magistrate can take cognizance based on a police report.

2. Validity of the Complaint under Section 498A IPC:

The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 498A IPC on the ground that the second marriage was void, and thus, the complainant was not the wife of the appellant. The Supreme Court reversed this finding, citing the case of *Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and others* (2004), which held that a person who enters into a marital arrangement cannot escape liability under Section 498A IPC by claiming the marriage is void. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent is to prevent harassment of women over dowry demands, regardless of the validity of the marriage.

3. Applicability of State Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure:

The Supreme Court analyzed Article 254 of the Constitution, which deals with inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures. The Court concluded that the amendment by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, making Sections 494 and 495 IPC cognizable, prevails in the State due to the Presidential assent. The Court rejected the argument that Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires a complaint by an aggrieved person, overrides the state amendment.

4. The Status of the Second Wife as an Aggrieved Person under Sections 494 and 495 IPC:

The Court held that the second wife, who suffers legal injuries due to the concealment of the first marriage, is an "aggrieved person" under Sections 494 and 495 IPC. The Court explained that the term "aggrieved person" should be interpreted broadly to include the second wife, who faces significant social and legal hardships due to the bigamous marriage. The Court emphasized that the object of Section 494 IPC is to enforce monogamy and prevent the social evils associated with bigamy.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and restored the complaint under Section 498A IPC. The Court upheld the legality of taking cognizance of offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC based on a police report in Andhra Pradesh, affirmed the status of the second wife as an aggrieved person, and emphasized the applicability of state amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure.