{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2000 Neelawati w/o Manik Patne APPLICANT VERSUS Manik s/o Chandrabhan Patne and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. N.B.Khandare Advocate for the applicant (Absent) ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 12th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. None present for the applicant and respondents. 2. It appears that Rule came to be issued in this revision on 03.06.2003. 3. Perusal of the record and proceedings shows that the present applicant had filed criminal case / private complaint bearing RCC No.84/1984 alleging that she is legally wedded wife of {2} respondent No.1 and in her lifetime respondent No.1 got married with respondent No.2 for which other respondents have assisted. It appears that learned JMFC, Kaij, vide judgment and order dated 29.08.1988 had convicted all the accused on different counts. It further appears that the original accused had challenged the order of conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No.68/1988 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai. It also appears that vide judgment and order dated 01.12.1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, pleased to set aside the order of conviction with further direction that the fine amount paid, if any, be refunded to the original accused. By this revision, the applicant/ original complainant has assailed the judgment dated 01.12.1999. 4. AS inspite of giving several chances none appear for the parties, and hence this Revision Application is being decided by this Court on perusal of the entire record and proceedings, in absence of any assistance. 5. In the revision this Court has to consider as to {3} whether any illegality is committed by the first appellate court while appreciating the evidence and reversing the order of the trial court or not. 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment demonstrates that the lower appellate court has considered the evidence of the complainant as well as of the witnesses examined on her behalf. It is observed that the complainant failed to establish that she is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1. In support of the reasoning, the learned lower appellate court, has given reference of the judgments of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 816 in the matter of “Shati Deb Barma V/s Smt.Kanchan Prava”. In the said judgment the Apex Court has observed that in the cases of bigamous marriages if it is brought on record that the first marriage, as alleged by the complainant, is not a valid marriage as all the customs and rituals have not been performed, then the first marriage is not a valid marriage in the eye of law. The learned first appellate court, after perusal of the evidence, which was led before the trial court, has observed that the marriage of the complainant {4} with respondent No.1 is not established. Admittedly, applicant and respondent No.1 are from Lingayat community. The witness, Digambar Swami, examined on behalf of the respondents at Exhibit-38, has stated that he is the priest of Lingayat community and had performed more than 500 marriages amongst Lingayat community. From the evidence of the said witness it is established that to hold that a marriage is valid and legal, there must be performance of Saptapadi at the time of solemnizing of the marriage. It is positively came on record that as the said ceremony was not performed at the time of alleged marriage of applicant with respondent No.1, it is held by the learned first appellate court that the complainant / applicant failed to establish that she is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and hence if in her lifetime respondent No.1 has performed second marriage with respondent No.2, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code and other respondents have committed an offence punishable u/s 494 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the appreciation of the evidence on record, which is not expected to be reappreciated in revision, it is clear that no perversity is noticed in the appreciation {5} of the evidence by the lower appellate court. The legal point involved in the matter is whether the applicant has established that she is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and in her lifetime respondent No.1 has performed second marriage with respondent No.2 with the assistance of other respondents. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court does not find that any illegality is committed by the lower appellate court while coming to the conclusion that the revision applicant failed to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1. Consequently, the revision is devoid of any merit and hence stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/crirev95-00