{"id":56812,"date":"1971-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971"},"modified":"2015-07-04T14:16:55","modified_gmt":"2015-07-04T08:46:55","slug":"priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971","title":{"rendered":"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1153, \t\t  1971 SCR  (3) 961<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: C Vaidyialingam<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPRIYA BALA GHOSH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSURESH CHANDRA GHOSH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/03\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nRAY, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1153\t\t  1971 SCR  (3) 961\n 1971 SCC  (1) 864\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1979 SC 713\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nPenal  Code  (Act  45  of  1860),  s.  494-Proof  of  second\nmarriage-Admission of second marriage-Relevancy.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\tfiled a complaint against  her\thusband\t the\nrespondent,  stating that he took a second wife\t during\t the\nsubsistence  of\t the  appellant's  marriage  and  that\t the\nrespondent was therefore guilty of an offence 'under s.\t 494\nI.P.C. The trial court convicted the respondent.  In appeal,\nthe  Sessions  Court found, that in relation to\t the  second\nmarriage,  there was no evidence of the performance of\tHomo\nand  Saptapadi, which were essential rites to  be  performed\nfor  solemn-isation  of\t a marriage  according\tto  the\t law\nprevailing  among  the\tparties;  and  the  respondent\t was\nacquitted.  In the High Court, in order to prove the  second\nmarriage, the appellant sought to rely upon a statement made\nby the respondent in answer to an earlier complaint under s.\n494  I.P.C., filed by-the appellant, wherein the  respondent\nhad  admitted that he had married a second wife\t because  of\nthe  misconduct of the appellant.  The High Court,  however,\nheld that the statement could not be relied upon for proving\nthat  the  essential  ceremonies  had  been  performed\t and\nconfirmed the,acquittal of the respondent.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD  (1)  The prosecution has. to prove  that\tthe  alleged\nsecond\tmarriage,  was a valid marriage, duly  performed  in\naccordance  with  the essential religious  rites  applicable\naccording to the law and custom of the parties. [967 E]\n(2)  The statement in the earlier proceedings in relation to\nthe complaint under s. 494 I.P.C., could not be relied\tupon\nbecause\t :  (although  strictly\t it  was  not  a  confession never\ntheless,  if acted upon it would tend  to  incriminate\nthe  respondent (who was in the position of an accused)\t and\ntherefore  he  was entitled to be given\t an  opportunity  of\noffering  his  explanation,  if\t any,  in  respect  of\tsuch\nincriminating statement; (b) such opportunity was not  given\nto  the\t respondent and it was not put to him  when  he\t was\nexamined  under\t s. 342 Cr.P.C. and (c)\t such  an  admission\ncannot in law be treated as evidence of the 'second marriage\nhaving taken place in a bigamy case. [969 D-H]\n(3)  In\t the present case, both the Sessions Judge  and\t the\nHigh  Court have found that there was no evidence that\tHomo\nand  Saptapadi,\t which are essential rites  for\t a  marriage\naccording  to law governing the parties, had been  performed\nwhen  the respondent is said to have married a second  wife,\nand hence the respondent was not guilty. [964 C; 970 B-C]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1630427\/\">Bhaurao\t Shankar Lokhande v. State Of Maharashtra,<\/a> [1965]  2\nS.C.R. 837 and Kanwal Ram v, Himachal Pradesh Admn, [1966] 1\nS.C.R. 539, followed.\n962\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 275 of<br \/>\n1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nJanuary\t 19,  1968 of the Calcutta High\t Court\tin  Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal No. 393 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>S. C. Majumdarand R. K. Jain, for the appellant.<br \/>\nThe respondent did not appear.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nVaidialing,  J.\t In  this  appeal,  by\tspecial\t leave,\t the<br \/>\nappellant challenges the judgment and order of the, Calcutta<br \/>\nHigh Court dated January 19, 1968 in Criminal Appeal No. 393<br \/>\nof 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant filed a complaint dated April 11, 1963 against<br \/>\nthe respondent, her husband, in the Court of the Magistrate,<br \/>\n1st  Class,  Alipurduar, alleging that he has  committed  an<br \/>\noffence under S.    494\t of the Indian Penal Code.   Briefly<br \/>\nher case was as follows\t :\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent had married the appellant in or about 1948<br \/>\naccording  to  Hindu  rites and both of them  had  lived  as<br \/>\nhusband\t and wife, together.  But some time before the\tdate<br \/>\nof the complaint the respondent began to ill treat her, with<br \/>\nthe  result  that  she had to reside  with  her\t mother\t and<br \/>\nbrother.  The respondent illegally married one Sandhya\tRani<br \/>\nas  his\t second\t wife on May 3 1, 1962 and  they  have\tbeen<br \/>\nliving together as husband and wife.  As the second marriage<br \/>\nhas  taken place during the subsistence of  the\t appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nmarriage with the respondent, the second marriage is invalid<br \/>\nin  law\t and the respondent is guilty of  an  offence  under<br \/>\nS.494 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  respondent pleaded not guilty of the&#8217;  offence  alleged<br \/>\nagainst\t him.  He further pleaded that he has never  married<br \/>\nthe appellant and that the entire prosecution case is false.<br \/>\nThe trial Magistrate after considering the evidence  adduced<br \/>\nboth  regarding the marriage between the appellant  and\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  as well as the alleged second marriage  between-<br \/>\nthe  respondent and Sandhya Rani, held that the marriage  of<br \/>\nthe   appellant\t  with\tthe  respondent\t  was\testablished.<br \/>\nNotwithstanding the scantiness of the evidence regarding the<br \/>\nsecond\tmarriage, the Trial Magistrate, however, found\tthat<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t had  admitted the second  marriage  in\t his<br \/>\nobjections  filed  to  a claim made  by\t the  appellant\t for<br \/>\nmaintenance under S. 488 of the Code of Crimi-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    963<\/span><\/p>\n<p>nal Procedure.\tIn this view the Magistrate held that  there<br \/>\ncannot be any doubt that the respondent has married  Sandhya<br \/>\nRani  while his first wife, the appellant, was still  alive.<br \/>\nthe  Magistrate further held that as the marriage  with\t the<br \/>\nappellant was subsisting, the second marriage is void  under<br \/>\ns.  17\tof  the Hindu Marria Act, 1955\t(Act  25  of  1955),<br \/>\n(hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and, therefore,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  was guilty of the offence under s. 494  of\tthe<br \/>\nIndian.\t  Penal Code.  The respondent was sentenced for\t the<br \/>\nsaid  offence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one\tyear<br \/>\nand also to pay a fine of Rs. 5001- and in default to suffer<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.<br \/>\nA  further  direction  was  given that\thalf  the  fine,  if<br \/>\nrealised, was to be paid to the complaint, the appellant.<br \/>\nOn  appeal  by the respondent, the learned  Sessions  Judge,<br \/>\nJalpaiguri,  by his judgment dated April 30 1966  held\tthat<br \/>\nthe   evidence\tdoes  not  establish  that   the   essential<br \/>\nceremonies   to\t constitute  a\tvalid  marriage\t have\tbeen<br \/>\nperformed either in the case of the marriage claimed to have<br \/>\ntaken place between the appellant and the- respondent or  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the alleged second marriage with  Sandhya  Rani.<br \/>\nIn this view the learned Sessions Judge set aside the  order<br \/>\nof  the magistrate convicting the respondent and  sentencing<br \/>\nhim as mentioned above.\t The respondent was acquitted of the<br \/>\noffence under s. 494 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  appeal by the appellant, the Calcutta High\tCourt,\thow-<br \/>\never,,\tdiffered from the finding of the,  learned  Sessions<br \/>\nJudge  regarding the invalidity of the marriage between\t the<br \/>\nappellant  and the respondent.\tOn the other hand, the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  held  that  the evidence\t establishes  that  a  valid<br \/>\nmarriage, according to Hindu law, by which the parties\twere<br \/>\ngoverned,  has\ttaken place between the\t appellant  and\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   But  regarding the second marriage,  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt agreed with the finding of the learned Sessions  Judge<br \/>\nthat  the  essential  ceremonies&#8217;  to  constitute  a   valid<br \/>\nmarriage have not been proved to have taken place.  In\tthis<br \/>\nview the High Court confirmed the order of acquittal  passed<br \/>\nin  favour of the respondent and dismissed, the\t appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.  S. C. Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellant,\t has<br \/>\nraised\ttwo  contentions before us I  that the view  of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  that the essential ceremonies to  constitute  a<br \/>\nvalid  marriage\t have not been proved to  have\ttaken  place<br \/>\nregarding  the\tsecond.\t marriage  of  the  respondent\twith<br \/>\nSandhya\t Rani,\tis erroneous and contrary  to  the  evidence<br \/>\nadduced\t in  the case and (2) In any event in  view  of\t the<br \/>\nspecific admission made by the respondent in Ex. 2 about the<br \/>\nsecond\t marriage  and\thaving\tdue  regard  to\t the   other<br \/>\nsurrounding circumstances, it must be held that the  respon-<br \/>\ndent  is  guilty  of the offence, under s.  494\t I.P.C.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">964<\/span><br \/>\nhas  not  appeared before us and we have to proceed  on\t the<br \/>\nbasis of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, accepted<br \/>\nby  the\t High Court, that the appellant was married  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondent and that the marriage was subsisting on the\tdate<br \/>\nof the allied second marriage.\n<\/p>\n<p>Both  the  contentions\tof  the\t learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant  can be dealt with together.\tIt has been  pointed<br \/>\nout  by\t the learned Sessions Judge that both  sides  agreed<br \/>\nthat according to the law prevalent amongst the parties Homo<br \/>\nand  Saptapadi\twere,  essential rites to  be  performed  to<br \/>\nconstitute a valid marriage.  Both sides also agreed  before<br \/>\nthe  Court  that there was no specific evidence\t as  to\t the<br \/>\nperformance of Saptapadi and Homo in the case of the alleged<br \/>\nmarriage  of the respondent with Sandhya  Rani.\t  Therefore,<br \/>\nthe main question that has to. be considered is, whether the<br \/>\nperformance  of\t the above ceremonies and rites have  to  be<br \/>\nestablished  by evidence specifically before the  respondent<br \/>\ncould  be convicted under s. 494 I.P.C. The findings of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court are that the Priest, P.W. 6, who claims to\thave<br \/>\nofficiated  at\tthe marriage of the respondent\tand  Sandhya<br \/>\nRani has given evidence to the effect that the marriage\t was<br \/>\nsolemnised  according  to  Hindu rites.\t  He  has  not\tsaid<br \/>\nanything more than this.  The other evidence adduced has not<br \/>\nbeen  considered  to  be of any use  in\t this  regard.\t The<br \/>\nfurther\t finding of the High Court is that no  evidence\t was<br \/>\nadduced\t that the Homo and Saptapadi were performed  in\t the<br \/>\ncase of the marriage between Sandhya Rani and the respondent<br \/>\nand  that  it has also not been proved that  there  was\t any<br \/>\ncustom\tprevalent amongst the parties that  those  essential<br \/>\nceremonies   are   not\t necessary  for\t  the\tpurpose\t  of<br \/>\nsolemnization of the marriage.\n<\/p>\n<p>According  to Mr. Majunidar, when once the priest has  given<br \/>\nevidence  to  the  effect  that\t the  marriage\tbetween\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  and Sandhya Rani has been performed, it  follows<br \/>\nthat  all  the essential ceremonies that  are  necessary  to<br \/>\nconstitute  a valid marriage must be presumed to  have\tbeen<br \/>\nperformed.   In\t any event, when there is evidence  to\tshow<br \/>\nthat the marriage as a fact has taken place, the presumption<br \/>\nis  that  it  has taken place according\t to  law.   In\tthis<br \/>\nconnection  Mr.\t Majumdar  referred us\tto  various  English<br \/>\ndecisions  when on the basis of certain\t evidence  regarding<br \/>\nthe  taking  place  of\tmarriage  between  the,\t parties   a<br \/>\npresumption has been drawn that the marriage must have\tbeen<br \/>\nsolemnized  according  to  law.\t  In  our  opinion,  it\t  is<br \/>\nunnecessary  to\t refer to those cases cited by\tthe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t as the position is concluded against the  appellant<br \/>\nby the decisions of this Court on both points.\tSection 5 of<br \/>\nthe  Act lays down conditions for a Hindu marriage&#8217; It\twill<br \/>\nbe  seen that one of the conditions is that referred  to  in<br \/>\nclause (i), namely, that neither of the parties<br \/>\n\t\t\t    96 5<br \/>\nhas a spouse living at the time of the marriage., Section  7<br \/>\ndealing with the ceremonies for Hindu marriage is as follows<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Section 7-Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.<br \/>\n\t      (1)   A  Hindu marriage may be  solemnized  in<br \/>\n\t      accordance   with\t the  customary\t rites\t and<br \/>\n\t      ceremonies of either party thereto.<br \/>\n\t      (2)   Where such rites and ceremonies  include<br \/>\n\t      the  Saptapadi  that is, the taking  of  seven<br \/>\n\t      steps by the bridegroom and the bride  jointly<br \/>\n\t      before the as red fire), the marriage  becomes<br \/>\n\t      a\t complete and binding when the seventh\tstep<br \/>\n\t      is taken.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>We  have ponited out that in the case before us\t both  sides<br \/>\nwere agreed that according to the law prevalent amongst them<br \/>\nHomo and saptapadi were essential rites to be performed\t for<br \/>\nsolemnities  of\t the  marriage\tand  there  is\tno  specific<br \/>\nevidence regarding the performance of these essential rites.<br \/>\nThe  parties have also not proved that they are governed  by<br \/>\nany  custom under which these essential ceremonies need\t not<br \/>\nbe performed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section\t 1 1 of the Act deals with void marriages.   One  of<br \/>\nthe  conditions,  if  contravened, which  makes\t a  marriage<br \/>\nsolemnized after the commencement of the Act, null and\tvoid<br \/>\nis if any party thereto have a spouse living at the time  of<br \/>\nthe marriage.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 17 relating to punishment of bigamy is as follows<br \/>\n&#8220;Section 17 Punishment of bigamy<br \/>\n\t      Any  marriage  between two  Hindus  solemnized<br \/>\n\t      after the commencement of this- Act is void if<br \/>\n\t      at the date of such marriage either party\t had<br \/>\n\t      a\t husband or Wife living; and the  provisions<br \/>\n\t      of  sections 494 and 495 of the  Indian  Penal<br \/>\n\t      Code shall apply accordingly.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Again in the case before us there is no controversy that the<br \/>\nsecond marriage is stated to have taken place after the com-<br \/>\nmencement  of the Act during the subsistence of\t the  first<br \/>\nmarriage.   If the second marriage has taken place, it\twill<br \/>\nbe  void  under the circumstances and s. 494 of\t the  Indian<br \/>\nPenal  Code  will be attracted.\t Section 494 of\t the  Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code is as follows<br \/>\n&#8220;Section  494-Marrying again during lifetime of\t husband  or<br \/>\nwife<br \/>\n\t      Whoever,\thaving\ta husband  or  wife  living,<br \/>\n\t      marries in any case in which such marriage  is<br \/>\n\t      void by reason of its taking place during\t the<br \/>\n\t      lift.-  of  such\thusband or  wife,  shall  be<br \/>\n\t      punished with imprisonment of either descrip-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      966<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t      tion  for\t a term which may  extend  to  seven<br \/>\n\t      years, and shall also be liable to fine.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In  Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and another v. Slate  of  Maha-<br \/>\nrashtra\t and  another,(1) the question arose  whether  in  a<br \/>\nprosecution for bigamy under S. 494 I.P.C. it was  necessary<br \/>\nto  establish  that  the  second  marriage  had\t been\tduly<br \/>\nperformed  in accordance with the essential religious  rites<br \/>\napplicable to the form of marriage gone through.  The  first<br \/>\nappellant therein had been convicted for an offence under s.<br \/>\n494  I.P.C. for going through a marriage which was  void  by<br \/>\nreason\tof  its\t taking place during the life  time  of\t the<br \/>\nprevious  wife.\t  The said appellant contended that  it\t was<br \/>\n&#8216;necessary for the prosecution to establish that the alleged<br \/>\nsecond\tmarriage had been duly performed in accordance\twith<br \/>\nthe  essential\treligious rites.  The State,  on  the  other<br \/>\nhand,  contended  that for the commission-  of\tthe  offence<br \/>\nunder  s.  494 I.P.C. it was not necessary that\t the  second<br \/>\nmarriage  should be a valid one and a person  going  through<br \/>\nany form of marriage during the life time of the first\twife<br \/>\nwould  be  guilty of the offence.  This Court  rejected\t the<br \/>\ncontention of the State and observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Prima  facie  the  expression   &#8216;whoever&#8230;..<br \/>\n\t      marries&#8217;\tmust  mean  &#8216;whoever  &#8230;.   marries<br \/>\n\t      validly&#8217;\tor  whover &#8230;.. marries  and  whose<br \/>\n\t      marriage\tis a valid one.&#8217; If the marriage  is<br \/>\n\t      not  a  valid  one,  according  to,  the\tlaw.<br \/>\n\t      applicable to the parties, no question of\t its<br \/>\n\t      being  void  by  reason of  its  taking  place<br \/>\n\t      during the life time of the husband or wife of<br \/>\n\t      the  person marrying arises.  If the  marriage<br \/>\n\t      is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage  in<br \/>\n\t      the eye of law.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Again in interpreting the word &#8220;solemnize&#8221;  in<br \/>\n\t      S. 17 of the Act, it was stated :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The word &#8216;solemnize&#8217; means in connection with<br \/>\n\t      a\t marriage, &#8216;to celebrate the  marriage\twith<br \/>\n\t      proper  ceremonies and in due form,  according<br \/>\n\t      to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary.\t It follows,<br \/>\n\t      therefore,   that\t unless\t the   marriage\t  is<br \/>\n\t      &#8216;celebrated    or\t  performed   with    proper<br \/>\n\t      ceremonies and due form&#8217; it cannot be said  to<br \/>\n\t      be  &#8216;solemnized&#8217;.\t It is\ttherefore  essential<br \/>\n\t      for the Purpose of S. 17 of the Act, that\t the<br \/>\n\t      marriage\tto  which s. 494 I.P.C.\t applies  on<br \/>\n\t      account of the provisions of the Act,  should<br \/>\n\t      have  been celebrated with  Droper  ceremonies<br \/>\n\t      and in due form.\tMerely going through certain<br \/>\n\t      ceremonies with the intention that the parties<br \/>\n\t      be  taken\t to be married. will not  make\tthem<br \/>\n\t      ceremonies precribed by law or approved by any<br \/>\n\t      established custom.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(1)  [1965] 2 S.C.R. 837.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t    96 7<br \/>\nFrom  the above quotations it is clear that if\tthe  alleged<br \/>\nsecond\tmarriage  is  not  a  valid  one  according  to\t law<br \/>\napplicable to the parties, it will not be void by reason  of<br \/>\nits taking place during the life of the husband or the\twife<br \/>\nof the person marrying so as to attract s. 494 I.P.C.  Again<br \/>\nin  order  to  hold  that  the\tsecond\tmarriage  has\tbeen<br \/>\nsolemnized  so\tas  to\tattract s. 17  of  the\tAct,  it  is<br \/>\nessential   that  the  second  marriage\t should\t have\tbeen<br \/>\ncelebrated with proper ceremonies and-in due form.<br \/>\nIn  the\t said  decision this Court  further  considered\t the<br \/>\nquestion  whether it has been established that with  respect<br \/>\nto the alleged second marriage the essential ceremonies\t for<br \/>\nvalid marriage have been performed.  After referring to\t the<br \/>\npassage in Mulla&#8217;s Hindu Law, 12th Edn. at page 615  dealing<br \/>\nwith the essential ceremonies which have to be performed for<br \/>\na valid marriage, this Court, on the evidence held that\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  had  neither  established\tthat  the  essential<br \/>\nceremonies  had been performed nor that the  performance  of<br \/>\nthe  essential\tcermon is had been abrogated by\t the  custom<br \/>\ngoveming  the  community to which the parties  belonged\t  In<br \/>\nthis view it was held that the prosecution in that case\t had<br \/>\nfailed\tto  establish that the alleged second  marriage\t had<br \/>\nbeen performed in accordance with the requirement of s. 7 of<br \/>\nthe  Act.   The effect of the decision, in our\topinion,  is<br \/>\nthat  the prosecution has to prove tbat the  alleged  second<br \/>\nmarriage  had  been duly performed in  accordance  with\t the<br \/>\nessential religious rites aplicable to the form of  marriage<br \/>\ngone through by the parties and that the said marriage must<br \/>\nbe a valid one according to law applicable to the parties.<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1924788\/\">In  Kanwwl Ram and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Admn.<\/a>\t (1)<br \/>\nibis  Court  reiterated\t the principles, laid  down  is\t the<br \/>\nearlier decision referred to above that in aprosecution\t for<br \/>\nbigamy the second marriage has to be proved as a fact and it<br \/>\nmust  also be Proved that the necessary ceremonies had\tbeen<br \/>\nperformed.  Another Proposition laid down by this  decision,<br \/>\nwhich  answers the second contention of the learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor  the  appellant,  is that admission of  marriage  by  an<br \/>\naccused\t is  no\t evidence of marriage for  the\tpurrpose  of<br \/>\nproving, an offence of bieamv or adulterv.  On the  evidence<br \/>\nit was held in the said decision that the witnesses have not<br \/>\nProved that the essential ceremonies had been performed.<br \/>\nIt  was\t contended  that an admission made  by\tthe  accused<br \/>\nregarding the second mamaee. is conclusive of the fact of  a<br \/>\nsecond\tmarriage  having taken place and  that\twithout\t any<br \/>\nother\tevidence  a  conviction\t could\tbe  based  on\tsuch<br \/>\nadmission.  This Court rejected the said contention stating<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;it  is\t clear that  in\t law<br \/>\n\t      such admission\tis not evidence of the\tfact<br \/>\n\t      of the second marriage having<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      968<\/span><br \/>\n\t      taken  place.   In a bigamy case,\t the  second<br \/>\n\t      marriage\tas  a  fact, that  is  to  say,\t the<br \/>\n\t      ceremonies  constituting it must be  proved  :<br \/>\n\t      Empress v. Pitambur Singh(1), Empress v. Kallu<br \/>\n\t      ( 2) , Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence and<br \/>\n\t      Practice (35th ed.) Art. 3796. In Kallu&#8217;s case<br \/>\n\t      and  in Morries v. Miller(3) it has been\theld<br \/>\n\t      that  admission of marriage by the accused  is<br \/>\n\t      not evidence of it for the purpose of  proving<br \/>\n\t      marriage in an adultery or bigamy case&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\nThe decision in R. V. Robinson(4) was relied on in the above<br \/>\ndecision  on  behalf of the prosecution in  support  of\t the<br \/>\nproposition that it was not necessary to prove that all\t the<br \/>\nceremonies required for the particular form of marriage\t had<br \/>\nbeen  observed.\t After a consideration of the facts  in\t the<br \/>\nEnglish decision, quoted above, this Court has expressed the<br \/>\nview  that  the\t said decision does  not  support  the\tsaid<br \/>\nproposition enunciated on behalf of the prosecution.  We are<br \/>\nonly  adverting to this fact, because the  English  decision<br \/>\nwas  again  referred lo us by Mr. Majumdar; and\t it  is\t not<br \/>\nnecessary  for us to refer to the same over again  excepting<br \/>\nto  say that the said decision does not advance the case  of<br \/>\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>As pointed out earlier, this Court in Kanwal Ram&#8217;s case\t has<br \/>\nlaid down that an admission is not evidence of the fact that<br \/>\nthe  second  marriage has taken place after  the  ceremonies<br \/>\nconstituting  the same have been gone through.\tAs the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt\thas   dealt   with  the\t  question   regarding\t the<br \/>\nadmissibility  of  admission  contained in Ex.\t2,  we\twill<br \/>\nbriefly refer to the nature of the admission that was sought<br \/>\nto  be relied on against the respondent by the\tcomplainant.<br \/>\nBut  we\t make it clear that the\t discussion  regarding\tthis<br \/>\naspect\tis  only  to deal with the  contention\tadvanced  on<br \/>\nbehalf\tof the appellant and to reject the same.  The  trial<br \/>\nMagistrate  whose- decision was in favour of  the  appellant<br \/>\nhas himself expressed the view that the evidence on the side<br \/>\nof  the appellant regarding the alleged second\tmarriage  is<br \/>\nvery  scanty.  But that, court held that the respondent\t has<br \/>\nadmitted  the  second  marriage\t in  Ex.  4,  which  was  an<br \/>\nobjection filed by the respondent in an application filed by<br \/>\nthe appellant for maintenance under S. 488 Cr.\tP.C. We have<br \/>\ngone  through the said objection petition.   The  respondent<br \/>\nhas alleged various acts of misconduct against the appellant<br \/>\nand  be\t has merely stated that he was\tcompelled  to  marry<br \/>\nagain.\t But  no other narticulars have been given  in\tthe<br \/>\nsaid  objection\t mention.   We\tare  of\t the  view  that  no<br \/>\nadmission  of  the second marriage by the  respnondent\twith<br \/>\nSandhva Rani can be culled out from Ex. 4. In fact the trial<br \/>\ncourt has based its find ing\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   [1880] I.L.R,. 5 Cal.566.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   4 Burr. 2057, 98 E.R. 73,\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   [1882] I.L.R.5 All. 233.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   [1938] 1 All.  E.R. 301,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    969<\/span><br \/>\nregarding  the\tsecond marriage almost exclusively  on\twhat<br \/>\nit  considered\tto be an admission contained in Ex.,  4.  As<br \/>\nthere,\tis no such admission, the finding of the  magistrate<br \/>\nwas clearly erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before\tthe High Court, however, we find that the  appellant<br \/>\ndid  not place any reliance on Ex. 4. On the other hand\t she<br \/>\nrelied on an admission stated to have been contained in\t Ex.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The\t appellant  filed a complaint under  s.\t 494  I.P.C.<br \/>\nagainst the respondent on an earlier occasion on the  ground<br \/>\nthat  the  latter  had contracted  a  second  marriage\twith<br \/>\nSandhya Rani.  That complaint was, however, withdrawn as the<br \/>\nparticular  court had no jurisdiction.\tIn  that  proceeding<br \/>\nthe appellant wanted the said Sandhya Rani to be summoned as<br \/>\na  witness.   To that application, the respondent  filed  an<br \/>\nobjection  Ex.\t2 &#8216;wherein no doubt, he\t has  admitted\tthat<br \/>\nSandhya Rani is his wife and that he married her because  of<br \/>\nthe misconduct of the appellant.  The High Court  considered<br \/>\nthe question whether this Statement of the respondent in Ex.<br \/>\n2  that\t he has married Sandhya\t Rani can be treated  as  an<br \/>\nadmission of the fact of the second arriage.  The High Court<br \/>\nwas of the view that the statement contained in Ex. 2  would<br \/>\nreally be a confession statement and declined to act on\t the<br \/>\nsame for two reasons : firstly, that the statement, in Ex. 2<br \/>\nhad  no,,- been put to the respondent when he  was  examined<br \/>\nunder  s. 342 Cr.  P.C. so as to give him an opportunity  to<br \/>\nexplain\t the  statements contained therein;  secondly,\tthat<br \/>\neven  if the statement contained in Ex. 2 can be taken\tinto<br \/>\naccount\t by  themselves they will not be proof of  the\tfact<br \/>\nthat  all the essential ceremonies necessary for a  marriage<br \/>\nhave  been performed.  In our view the reasons given by\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court are substantially correct.\tThough strictly\t the<br \/>\nstatements  contained  in  Ex. 2 may not  be  a\t confession,<br \/>\nnevertheless,  these  statements,  if acted  upon,  tend  to<br \/>\nincriminate  he\t respondent.  The respondent  being  in\t the<br \/>\nnosition  of  an  accused  was\tentitled  to  be  given\t  an<br \/>\nopportunity  of offering his explanatiun if any, in  resdect<br \/>\nof  the incriminating statement contained in Ex. 2. Such  an<br \/>\nopportunity has not been admittedly given to the respondent.<br \/>\nHis  statement in Ex. 2 has not been put to his when be\t was<br \/>\nexamined under s. 342 Cr.  P.C:\n<\/p>\n<p>Further\t as pointed out by this Court in Kawal\tRam&#8217;s  case,<br \/>\nthe admission in Ex. 2 cannot in law be treated as  evidence<br \/>\nof the second marriage having taken place in an adultery  or<br \/>\nbegamy case: and that in such cases it must be proved by the<br \/>\nprosecution  that  the second marriage as a fact  has  taken<br \/>\nplace after the performance of the essential ceremonies.<br \/>\nMr. Majumdar relied on the decision of this Court in  Bharat<br \/>\nSingh  and another vs. Bhagirathi(1) to the effect that\t the<br \/>\nadmis-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   [1966] 1 S.C.R. 606.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">970<\/span><\/p>\n<p>sions made by a party are substantive evidence by themselves<br \/>\nin  view  of ss. 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence  Act,\t and<br \/>\nthat  if those admissions have been duly proved they can  be<br \/>\nrelied on irrespective of the fact whether the party  making<br \/>\nthem appear in the witness box or not or irrespective of the<br \/>\nfact  whether  such a party had or had not  been  confronted<br \/>\nwith  those  admissions.   We do not  think  that  the\tsaid<br \/>\ndecision  in any way supports the appellant with  regard  to<br \/>\nprosecution for bigamy under s. 494 I.P.C.<br \/>\nTo conclude, we have already referred to the fact that\tboth<br \/>\nthe   learned  Sessions\t Judge\tand  the  High\tCourt\thave<br \/>\ncategorically  found  that the Homo and\t Saptapadi  are\t the<br \/>\nessential  rites-for a\tmarriage  according  to\t the   law<br \/>\ngoverning  the\tparties and that there is no  evidence\tthat<br \/>\nthese two essential ceremonies have been performed when\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  is\tstated\tto have married\t Sandhya  Rani.\t  No<br \/>\nreliance  canbe\t placed\t on  the  admissions  stated  to  be<br \/>\ncontained   in\tEx.  2.\t For  all  the\tabove  reasons\t the<br \/>\ncontentions of Mr. Majumdar have to be rejected.<br \/>\nThe appeal fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t\t\t\t      Appedl dismissed.\n9 7 1\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1153, 1971 SCR (3) 961 Author: C Vaidyialingam Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: PRIYA BALA GHOSH Vs. RESPONDENT: SURESH CHANDRA GHOSH DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/03\/1971 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. RAY, A.N. CITATION: 1971 AIR 1153 1971 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-04T08:46:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-04T08:46:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971\"},\"wordCount\":3742,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971\",\"name\":\"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-04T08:46:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-04T08:46:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971","datePublished":"1971-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-04T08:46:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971"},"wordCount":3742,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971","name":"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-04T08:46:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-bala-ghosh-vs-suresh-chandra-ghosh-on-4-march-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56812","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56812"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56812\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}