AI generated image used for representative purposeNEW DELHI: The Uttarakhand high court, in a judgment dated July 31, refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of bigamy, holding that a woman is not required to prove at the initial stage that her husband's second marriage was performed with all the essential Hindu rituals, including Saptapadi (seven steps around the sacred fire).The court said whether the required marriage ceremonies were actually performed is an issue that has to be decided during the trial, and not when the court is deciding whether to summon the accused.Why did the husband approach the high court?According to the court's order, the complainant claimed that she married the accused in 1988. She alleged that while their marriage was still valid, he married another woman in 2010 without legally ending the first marriage. Based on her complaint and statement, the trial court summoned the accused in 2016 to face charges of bigamy and intentional insult. His revision petition against the summoning order was later dismissed by the sessions court, after which he approached the high court.The husband argued that the complaint did not contain any proof that his alleged second marriage was performed with the Saptapadi ceremony, which is an essential Hindu marriage ritual. Relying on an Allahabad high court judgment, he argued that without such proof, no offence of bigamy was made out and the criminal case should be quashed."The main ground on which he challenges the summoning order... is that, in the absence of establishment of marriage by performing the ritual of Saptapadi as per Hindu marriage, no offence under Section 494 of the IPC would be made out," the court order reads.Why did the high court refuse to quash the case?Justice Siddhartha Sah held that the only issue before the court was whether proof of Saptapadi was required before summoning the accused. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in K. Neelaveni v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court said whether the essential marriage ceremonies were performed is a question that has to be examined during the trial after evidence is led."The sole question that falls for determination... is whether the essential ceremonies of marriage were performed or not would be a matter of trial, or even at the initial stage of summoning the accused, the said essentials have to be proved by the complainant," the court said.The court noted that while the accused relied on an Allahabad high court judgment requiring proof of Saptapadi before summoning, the Delhi high court had taken a different view by relying on the Supreme Court's ruling. Agreeing with the Supreme Court's approach, the Uttarakhand high court held that the trial court was not required to decide whether Saptapadi had taken place before issuing summons."Ceremony of Saptapadi would be one of the essential ceremonies of marriage that would fall for consideration by the Trial Court during trial, and that question cannot be gone into at the primary stage of taking cognizance," it further added.The high court said it found no error in the trial court's summoning order or in the sessions court's decision refusing to interfere with it. It therefore declined to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused.