{"id":2927,"date":"2024-12-25T16:56:37","date_gmt":"2024-12-25T16:56:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=2927"},"modified":"2025-03-12T16:24:48","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T10:54:48","slug":"bhaurao-shankar-lokhande-v-state-of-maharashtra-1965-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/bhaurao-shankar-lokhande-v-state-of-maharashtra-1965-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra 1965 (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"2927\" class=\"elementor elementor-2927\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1564 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-family-law-case-with-the-case-name-bha__FKVi1mYSOKp_P3m0FzfrQ_engvBqbLS1-FrB0R68zlxQ.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-2929\" alt=\"Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1564\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-family-law-case-with-the-case-name-bha__FKVi1mYSOKp_P3m0FzfrQ_engvBqbLS1-FrB0R68zlxQ.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-family-law-case-with-the-case-name-bha__FKVi1mYSOKp_P3m0FzfrQ_engvBqbLS1-FrB0R68zlxQ-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-family-law-case-with-the-case-name-bha__FKVi1mYSOKp_P3m0FzfrQ_engvBqbLS1-FrB0R68zlxQ-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-family-law-case-with-the-case-name-bha__FKVi1mYSOKp_P3m0FzfrQ_engvBqbLS1-FrB0R68zlxQ-150x84.jpeg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-family-law-case-with-the-case-name-bha__FKVi1mYSOKp_P3m0FzfrQ_engvBqbLS1-FrB0R68zlxQ-768x431.jpeg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India clarified the conditions required for the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court addressed whether the second marriage must be valid and properly solemnized according to Hindu rites to constitute an offence under the law.<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/bhaurao-shankar-lokhande-v-state-of-maharashtra-1965-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Bhaurao_Shankar_Lokhande_v_State_of_Maharashtra\" >Facts of Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/bhaurao-shankar-lokhande-v-state-of-maharashtra-1965-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/bhaurao-shankar-lokhande-v-state-of-maharashtra-1965-case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/bhaurao-shankar-lokhande-v-state-of-maharashtra-1965-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Bhaurao_Shankar_Lokhande_v_State_of_Maharashtra\" >Judgment of Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/bhaurao-shankar-lokhande-v-state-of-maharashtra-1965-case-summary\/#Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\" >Click here to Read the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Bhaurao_Shankar_Lokhande_v_State_of_Maharashtra\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The appellant, Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande, was accused of bigamy for marrying a second woman, Kamlabai, during the lifetime of his first wife, Indubai, without a proper divorce.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The prosecution argued that the second marriage was conducted in the Gandharva form, a custom in the Maharashtrian community, and thus valid.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bhaurao contended that the essential ceremonies for a valid Hindu marriage, such as <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">saptapadi<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (seven steps before the sacred fire), were not performed, making the second marriage invalid.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the second marriage of Bhaurao Lokhande was valid and solemnized according to Hindu rites, which is essential for an offence under Section 494 IPC?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether a marriage that does not follow proper religious rites can be considered valid for the purpose of applying Section 494 IPC?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The district court had convicted Bhaurao under Section 494 IPC and his brother under Section 494 read with Section 114 (abetment). The High Court concurred with the lower courts, finding no merit in the appellants&#8217; argument that the second marriage was not validly solemnized.The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Bhaurao_Shankar_Lokhande_v_State_of_Maharashtra\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><b>Judgment of Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The court primarily examined the application of Section 494 IPC in light of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specifically Section 17, which mandates that a second marriage must be properly &#8220;solemnized&#8221; to be considered void.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court held that for a marriage to be considered solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act, it must include the essential ceremonies such as <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">saptapadi<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and invocation before the sacred fire. Since these ceremonies were not performed in the second marriage, it was not a valid marriage under Hindu law.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court overturned the convictions of both Bhaurao Lokhande and his brother, ruling that the second marriage was not validly solemnized, and thus, Section 494 IPC could not apply. The Court acquitted the appellants and ordered the fines to be refunded\u200b.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\"><\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Bhaurao-Shankar-Lokhande-v.-State-of-Maharashtra-AIR-1965-SC-1564.pdf\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Click here to Read the Judgment<\/strong><\/span><\/a><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-8af0c99 elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"8af0c99\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Bhaurao-Shankar-Lokhande-v.-State-of-Maharashtra-AIR-1965-SC-1564.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India clarified the conditions required for the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court addressed whether the second marriage must be valid and properly solemnized according to Hindu rites to constitute an offence under the law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2929,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[68,67,69,12],"class_list":["post-2927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-bigamy","tag-hindu-marriage-act-1955","tag-section-494-ipc","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2927"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2927\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4389,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2927\/revisions\/4389"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2929"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}