Delhi District Court
Umesh Kalia vs Neha Kalia @ Nargis Ors on 11 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT GARG, LD JMFC-01, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI UMESH KALIA Vs. NEHA KALIA @ Nargis P.S : Lodhi Colony U/s 494 IPC 1. CTC No. : 621368/2016 2. Old CTC No. : 665/2012 3. Date of institution : 04.05.2011 3. Date of commission of offence : December 2009 4. Name of the complainant : Umesh Kalia S/o 5. Name of the accused : Neha Kalia @ Nargis S/o Sh. Nabi Ahmad Khan 6. Nature of offence complained of : 494 IPC 7. Plea of the accused person : Accused pleaded not guilty 8. Date reserved for order : 07.09.2024 9. Final Order : 07.09.2024 10. Date of such order : 07.09.2024 JUDGMENT
1. This is a complaint case filed by the complainant in which charge was framed against the accused person U/s 494 IPC vide order dated 25.08.2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are that as per the complainant, he and the accused were in love and on 12th August 2005, they got married to each other despite the objections which were raised by the parents of the family of the accused. The accused was professing Muslim religion before marriage and she converted into Hinduism and got married to the complainant according to the Hindu rituals.
3. Later the family of the accused person became cordial with the Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG Date:
GARG 2024.09.11
17:23:17
+0530
complainant. The complainant also loaned some amount to the brothers of the accused. But when he asked them to return the money, the accused person started quarreling with the complainant.
4. On 27th November 2010, the accused person left the complainant assuring him that she will come back after 10 days. But she did not return. There after on 17th December 2010 the complainant lodged a missing report for his wife. A writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein the complainant got to know that the accused had married one Imran. Therefore as per the complainant the accused person had committed an offence under section 494 of IPC.
5. The accused person was summoned under section 494 IPC vide order dated 14th may 2016. After summoning of the accused, Complainant lead evidence. In pre summoning evidence 4 witnesses were examined And after summoning order only one witness was examined. Charge was framed against the accused under section 494 IPC and after framing of charge none of the witnesses were examined or cross examined by the accused.
6. After recording the statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C the matter was put up for final arguments, since the accused did not lead any defence evidence.
7. During final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused person married the complainant knowingly and willingly.
8. He submitted that the accused person converted her religion for marrying the complainant and certificate qua conversion has been exhibited in evidence.
9. That the accused person married the complainant and certificate of marriage is also on record. The photographs from the said marriage are also on record. The fact that the complainant got married to her is not disputed by the accused. And she herself stated in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that she has married one person Imran in 2010. Therefore the accused shall be convicted in the present case.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused person was intoxicated at the time of our marriage by the complainant and therefore the Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG Date:
GARG 2024.09.11
17:23:24
+0530
marriage is null and void. The complainant has not examined any neighbours to prove the marriage nor has he annexed any shopping bills or anniversary photographs or lease agreement or any other documents to prove the factum of marriage. Further he argued that the marriage was conducted in suspicious circumstances and that such a marriage could have only been solemnized as per the Special Marriage Act. It was further argued that the conversion was illegal in as much as the conversion as well as the marriage could not have taken place on the same date. He further submits that the conversion was illegal on another count that it was solely for the purpose of marriage.
11. I have gone through material available on record.
12. It is the case of the complainant that the accused got married to her in 2005 after converting her religion to Hinduism on 13.08.2005 and in 2010, without divorcing him, she married another person namely Imran. Therefore she shall be convicted for bigamy U/s 494 IPC.
13. To prove its case, the complainant has produced the conversion certificate which is Ex.CW2/B ; affidavit which is Ex.CW2/C and the marriage certificate which is Ex.CW2/A. Further the photographs of the marriage ceremony are Ex.CW1/A (colly). Further the Archarya/priest was examined as CW2 and he categorically deposed that her performed the marriage of the complainant and the accused person at Arya Samaj Mandir, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P on 13.08.2005 and had issued the marriage certificate as well as the conversion certificate. He also deposed that he verified the DOB of the complainant and the accused before performing the marriage.
14. It is not disputed by the accused person that she got married to the complainant in the year 2005. The certificate of marriage, the photographs of the marriage and the conversion certificate all are on record and genuineness of any of these documents has not been disputed by the accused. The accused in her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C had baldly denied all the incriminating circumstances and has not lead DE. Further it is contented by the accused that she was intoxicated at the time of Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG Date:
GARG 2024.09.11 17:23:29 +0530 marriage. However, no evidence has been lead in proof of any such intoxication.
15. It is noted that as per the record there are several certificates and proofs of marriage on record. The fact that the accused person professed Muslim religion before marriage and got converted into Hindu religion for the purpose of marriage has been proved by the complainant by exhibiting the conversion certificate. The fact of marriage has also been proved by the complainant by producing the photographs of the marriage ceremony and the certificate issued by Arya Samaj.
16. Even if the contentions of the accused person are taken to be true, it is not conceivable as to why the accused person did not approach any authority in 6 years between 2005 and 2010 to get the marriage nullified. She never complained to any police or public authority about the forceful nature of marriage. Only in 2010 after a writ of habeas corpus was filed By the complainant, the accused person appeared and admitted the fact that she is married to someone else. Therefore the contention of the accused person is not believable that she married the complainant in 2005 under intoxication and thus that marriage is null and void.
17. The fact that she married for the second time without divorcing the complainant is not even disputed by the accused person, except her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C that the marriage solemnized in the year 2010 was her first marriage. However, nothing has been place on record to prove that the assertion that she had not married the complainant in the year 2005 or that the marriage at 2005 was performed under intoxication. The persual of the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C makes it amply clear that the accused had re-married in the year 2010.
18. In the light of the fact that the accused has not assailed the validity of the conversion certificate, the marriage certificate, the photographs of the marriage and the fact that the witnesses have not been cross examined, no weightage can be given to the argument that the complainant has not examined any neighbours to prove the marriage nor has he annexed any shopping bills or anniversary photographs or lease Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG Date:
GARG 2024.09.11
17:23:35
+0530
agreement or any other documents to prove the factum of marriage.
19. The argument that the conversion was illegal, also does not hold good in as much as no steps were ever taken by the accused to complain or nullify the said conversion or marriage.
20. From the above discussion, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had performed second marriage during the life time of her husband and the subsistence of her first marriage. Therefore all the ingredients of Section 494 IPC are made out against the accused.
21. Hence the Court convict the accused person for committing an offence U/s 494 IPC.
22. This judgment contains 07 pages. The judgment has been pronounced by me in open court and each page bears the digital signature of the undersigned.
23. Let the copy of the judgment be supplied forth with to the accused free of cost and also be uploaded on the official website.
Digitally signedANKIT by ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.11 17:23:42 +0530 Announced in open court ( ANKIT GARG ) today i.e. 11.09.2024. JMFC-01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi