JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.2.1984 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phillaur, by which the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT].
2. [CASE NUMBER] ([ENTITY] and Anr. v. The State of Punjab and Anr.) has been filed by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 13.12.1986, by which the conviction of [ENTITY] petitioner under [SECTION], [ACT], and the conviction of [ENTITY] petitioner under [SECTION], [ACT], has been maintained but their sentence has been reduced to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.
3. By this judgment, we propose to dispose of this appeal and the above-mentioned revision petition.
4 Briefly stated, the allegations mentioned in the complaint filed by [ENTITY] are as follows :
[ENTITY] appellant was married to [ENTITY] on 7-5-1975 according to [ENTITY] ceremonies and the marriage still subsists. They resided at various places as husband and wife. [ENTITY] used to maltreat his wife and the other members of his family also complained that she did not bring sufficient dowry. As she could not meet their demands of dowry, she was turned out of his house by her husband [ENTITY]. It is further alleged that in the month of July, 1981, [ENTITY], a relation of [ENTITY] from the maternal side, informed her that her husband [ENTITY] was roaming about with some other lady and that he came to know that this lady was the second wife of her husband [ENTITY]. The appellant alongwith her brother went to Delhi and approached Smt. [ENTITY] to enquire if she had married [ENTITY] and this fact was confirmed by her. It was told to the appellant by Smt. [ENTITY] that the factum of first marriage of [ENTITY] with [ENTITY] appellant was never disclosed to her.
[ENTITY] appellant appeared as her own witness as PW-1 and she examined [ENTITY] PW-2, [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] (PW-3), [ENTITY] PW-4. [ENTITY] PW-5, Smt [ENTITY] PW-6, [ENTITY] PW-7 and [ENTITY] PW-8 in support of her complaint.
5. After the close of the appellant's evidence, the statements of the accused under [SECTION], [ACT], were recorded. The factum of the first marriage was admitted by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. The second marriage with Smt. [ENTITY] was also admitted. However, it was stated by them that the first marriage was dissolved under Customary Law and the second marriage was performed after taking the expert legal opinion of [ENTITY], Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, regarding divorce under Customary Law. The other accused have denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they never attended the second marriage of [ENTITY] with Smt. [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], petitioners, have examined [ENTITY] DW-1, [ENTITY] DW-2, [ENTITY] DW-3, [ENTITY] DW-4, [ENTITY] DW-5, [ENTITY] DW-6, [ENTITY] DW-7, [ENTITY] DW-8 [ENTITY] DW-9, [ENTITY] DW-10, [ENTITY] DW-11, [ENTITY] DW-12 and [ENTITY] DW-13. These witnesses have been examined in connection with the custom regarding divorce amongst the Hindu Jat Sikhs of Jalandhar district. [ENTITY], Advocate of [ENTITY] (DW-10), proved the execution of divorce-deed Exhibit DW-10/A. [ENTITY] , Advocate, CW-1 stated that he had given the opinion that the first marriage can be revoked by renunciation among the Hindu Jat Sikhs of Jalandhar.
6. [ENTITY], respondent No. 2, and his wife Mrs. [ENTITY] were prosecuted because, according to the allegations in the complaint, they acted as go-in-between of the second marriage of [ENTITY] and also put in their appearance at the celebration of that marriage. Smt. [ENTITY] and her brother did testify that both these respondents acted as go-in between of her marriage with [ENTITY] but the letter Exhibits D-2 to D-4, produced on the file, go a long way to belie this version of Smt. [ENTITY] and her brother. These letters were written by [ENTITY], Advocate, father of Smt. [ENTITY], to [ENTITY] and the contents thereof do indicate that it was [ENTITY] who took active part in the settlement of the second marriage of [ENTITY] with Smt. [ENTITY] and settled the date of marriage and other terms of the marriage. There is no documentary evidence on the record in proof of the fact that [ENTITY] respondent and his wife acted as go-in- between of the marriage of Smt. [ENTITY].
7. The allegations against [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are that they alongwith [ENTITY] petitioner went to the house of Smt. [ENTITY] to have a look at Smt. [ENTITY]. There seems to be no truth in these allegations either. Of course, Smt. [ENTITY] and her brother deposed that [ENTITY] petitioner, his wife [ENTITY] and his daughter [ENTITY] came to Delhi before the marriage to have a look at Smt. [ENTITY] and that they represented that [ENTITY] was unmarried but, in the complaint, there is a recital to the effect that Smt. [ENTITY] told [ENTITY] appellant that [ENTITY], sister of [ENTITY] petitioner, went to Delhi to have a look at her and, in the complaint, no mention of [ENTITY] and his wife was made on that occasion. No photograph of that occasion was placed in proof of this allegation. So much so that neither Smt. [ENTITY] nor her brother mentioned any specific date when [ENTITY], [ENTITY], and [ENTITY] went to Delhi for that purpose. It seems that a specific date of this occasion was not mentioned under the apprehension that, on that particular date, the presence of these persons or any of them might not have been marked at some other place and the respondents might lead that proof on the file and thus spoil the entire case of the appellant.
8. In view of the above-mentioned discussion, we find no merit in [CASE NUMBER] and the same is dismissed.
9. Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioners in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. has argued that the second marriage of [ENTITY] with Smt. [ENTITY] does not stand proved. He has referred to [PRECEDENT], wherein it has been held that for proper application of [SECTION], [ACT], marriage must come within 'solemnized marriage' that 'solemnized' means "to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form" and that mere going through certain ceremonies with intention of marriage will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by custom In [PRECEDENT], it has been held :
"It appears that the essential four Lavans (circum-ambulations) made by the groom followed by the bride around the holy [ENTITY] amidst the chanting of the recitations of the hymns composed by the fourth Guru, [ENTITY], are the only essential ceremonies of the [ENTITY]. Somewhat parallel is the Saptpadi in the Hindu Marriage. They are the formal rounds of acceptance of the nuptial vows "
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that there is no proof to the effect if necessary ceremonies were performed at the time of the second marriage and so the offence under [SECTION], [ACT], is not made out against the petitioners. In support of his argument, he has relied upon [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
10. Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioners, has further argued that where there is no proof of essential ceremonies, conviction for bigamy is not justified and the admission of accused is no evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage in adultery or bigamy cases In support of his argument that mere admission by accused that he had contracted second marriage is not enough and that essential religious rites must be proved regarding solemnization of second marriage, he has relied upon [PRECEDENT].
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Smt. [ENTITY] has not stated anything if necessary ceremonies were performed. [ENTITY] PW-4, brother of Smt. [ENTITY], has only stated that the marriage of Smt. [ENTITY] was performed with [ENTITY] according to [ENTITY], The learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly contended that there is no mention by either of these two material witnesses, namely, [ENTITY] PW-4 and Smt [ENTITY] PW 6, as to what essential ceremonies were performed at the time of marriage by way of [ENTITY] and their mere saying that the marriage was performed by [ENTITY] is not sufficient unless there is proof to the effect as to what essential ceremonies were performed and as to what religious rites were observed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners- that there is no proof to the effect that four Lavans were performed by going around the holy [ENTITY] amidst recitation of "Path" from [ENTITY] concerning four Lavans and that, on this fact alone, the petitioners are entitled to acquittal, because the factum of second marriage according to law is not proved.
12. The learned counsel for [ENTITY] respondent has referred to the statement of [ENTITY] accused petitioner who admitted it to be correct that he had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court at Jalandhar against the second wife Smt. [ENTITY], which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. He contended that this shows that [ENTITY] accused-petitioner was fully aware of the fact that he had contracted second marriage with Smt. [ENTITY] and, for that very reason, he had filed a petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] against his second wife Smt. [ENTITY]. He further pointed out that [ENTITY] accused-petitioner further stated that he had re-married after obtaining legal advice and after his customary divorce as per custom prevalent in his community and that there was exchange of letters between the father of [ENTITY] accused-petitioner and the father of Smt. [ENTITY], which shows that the marriage had been solemnized between Smt. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
13. Another fact pointed out by the learned counsel for [ENTITY] respondent is that this matter regarding second marriage had come up before the Delhi High Court and the second marriage had been dissolved. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied upon Exhibit PW-6/C (judgment dated 1.3 1983 passed by the Delhi High Court in [CASE NUMBER]) [CASE NUMBER] was filed by [ENTITY] against Smt. [ENTITY] for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27-11-1982 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby the petition of Smt. [ENTITY] under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] was allowed and the marriage between the parties was annulled by a decree of nullity. The FAO was dismissed and the letters patent appeal against that judgment dated 1-3-1982 of the Single Judge was also dismissed on 5-5-1987. The learned counsel for [ENTITY] respondent has further submitted that it is well settled that judgments in rem, like judgments passed in probate, insolvency, matrimonial or guardianship or other similar proceedings, is admissible in all cases, irrespective of whether such judgments are inter partes or not In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon [PRECEDENT], which is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the point adjudicated upon in a judgment in rem is always as to the status of the res and is conclusive proof against the whole world as to that status, whereas in a judgment in personum the point whatever it may be, which is adjudicated upon, it not being as to the status of the res, is conclusive only between parties or privies. A decision in rem not merely declares the status of the person or thing, but ipso facto renders it such as it is declared ; thus a decree of annulment of marriage not only annuls the marriage but renders the wife feme sole.
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parlies, we are of the opinion that, in view of Exhibit PW-6/C, judgment dated 1-3-1983 passed by the Delhi High Court, which is admissible inevidence, the second marriage of [ENTITY] with Smt. [ENTITY] stands established and therefore, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the facts of the present case
15. In view of the above-mentioned discussion, [CASE NUMBER] is dismissed.