G.D. Sahgal, J. - (1.) Smt. Surja Devi, daughter of Ram Lal Appellant, was married to Raj Narain Jaiswal Respondent in the year 1954. Raj Narain Jaiswal is alleged to have married a second wife Smt. Ram Rani sometime after the coming it to force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act XXV of 1955) under which he could not marry a second wife during the life time of the first. It was in these circumstances that Ram Lal Appellant, father of Smt. Surja Devi, filed a complaint against Raj Narain Jaiswal and Smt. Ram Rani Under Sec. 494 IPO. Before the filing of the complaint he made an application for permission to the court Under Sec. 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to file the complaint on behalf of his daughter. That application was allowed. The case accordingly proceeded. It was transferred to the court of an Honorary Special Magistrate who tried it. The learned Magistrate convicted the Respondent Raj Narain Jaiswal but acquitted Smt. Ram Rani. He sentenced the said Raj Narain Jaiswal, Respondent No. 1, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Raj Na -rain Jaiswal filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge against his conviction, while Ram Lal Appellant filed an application in revision against the acquittal of Smt. Ram Rani, Respondent No. 2. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal on a preliminary point on the ground that the permission granted to Ram Lal to file the appeal was invalid as that case did not satisfy the provisions of the first proviso to Sec. 198 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as the complaint itself was held by him to be invalid on account of want of proper permission, he dismissed the application in revision also. It is in these circumstances that this appeal has been filed to this Court by Ram Lal against the order of acquittal of Raj Narain Jaiswal by the learned Sessions Judge and the order of dismissal of the application in revision against Smt. Ram Rani.
(2.) Our brother Misra, before whom the appeal came up for admission, admitted the appeal only against Raj Narain Jaiswal dismissing it against Smt. Ram Rani. The result is that the order of acquittal of Smt. Ram Rani has become final and it cannot now be set aside.
(3.) Sec. 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in so far as it is relevant for our purposes provides: 198. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence falling under...Sections 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the same Code (IPC), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence: Provided that, where the person so aggrieved is a woman who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, or where such person is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf: Provided further that where the person aggrieved by an offence Under Sec. 494 of the said Code - - (a) is the wife, any relative of the wife: may make a complaint on her behalf; (b)............ Explanation - -For the purpose of Clause (a) of the second proviso, 'relative' means any lineal descendant or ascendant of the wife, her brother or sister, or her father's or mother's brother or sister.;