M.N. RAO, J.

This public interest litigation case concerns an innocent woman and her treacherous husband. The petitioner Smt. S. Radhika Sameena - is the daughter of one Charan Dass, a retired Sub-Inspector of Police with cardiac problems. She has four sisters and one brother. She is a graduate in Commerce and a qualified higher-grade Stenographer. When she was working as an office Assistant in Royal Laboratories, Hyderabad in the year 1986, she became closely acquainted with one Dr. Jameeluddin, who was working as a Junior Chemist in the same concern. At the time, his qualification was only M.Sc., (Chemistry). They fell in love but deferred their marriage as Jameeluddin wanted to obtain a Ph.D., Degree. She helped him in completing his thesis foregoing a better job she got in the A.P. Bhavan, New Delhi. She also spent her own money apart from assisting him in completing his thesis. She was even taken by him to his Guide at Barkatullah University, Bhopal, where he had registered for Ph.D., for finalising the thesis. When the formalities of submitting the thesis were over, they were married on 7-8-1992 under the Special Marriage Act. Ex. A-1 is the photocopy of the marriage certificate. At that time, the petitioner was still a Hindu. They also went on honey-moon for ten days and spent happy time. When the petitioner - Smt. Radhika Sameena became pregnant, Dr. Jameeluddin persuaded her to terminate her pregnancy as he had two sisters yet to be married and his having any children would inconvenience him. Obliging her husband, the petitioner got her pregnancy terminated at Imtiyaz Hospital, New Malakpet, Hyderabad. After the marriage, for about six months, both the petitioner and Dr. Jameeluddin, her husband, lived as husband and wife, though not under the same roof. Dr. Jameeluddins family is a large one - apart from his parents, he has six sisters and five brothers, all living jointly. Presumably, he did not want his parents to come to know of the marriage. However, they were meeting at hotels and at the houses of his friends.

2. After obtaining the Ph.D., degree Dr. Jameeluddin secured a job in Gulf Manufacturing Company at Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, with good salary and perks. As his was the first visit to Saudi Arabia, he told the petitioner that it would not be possible for him to secure Visa for her immediately and so he went alone promising that after setting in his new job, he would come back and take her to Saudi Arabia. He wrote several letters from Saudi Arabia very frequently to the petitioner profusely showering his love and affection and yearning for her company. Very generous promises he made in the letters promising to purchase a house in her name and also sent her Rs. 50,000/- towards her pocket expenses. Before leaving for Saudi Arabia, he suggested to her that if she were to convert into Islam, it would be easy for him to take her to that country. Readly agreeing to this suggestion, the petitioner got herself converted into Islam on 3-3-1993. Ex. A-2 is the photocopy of the "religion certificate" issued by the A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad. After the marriage, she assumed the name "Sameena".

3. On 14-7-1996, Dr. Jameeluddin informed the petitioner on telephone from Riyadh that he would be coming to India on 15-7-1996. On the next day i.e., 15-7-1996, when she telephoned to her husbands office in Riyadh from a private STD/ISD telephone booth in Hyderabad, she got the reply that her husband had already left for India. On the night of 15-7-1996, when she rang up her husbands house, he told her that he would meet her at the bus stop on the next day. When she protested saying that it was not proper for him to meet his wife at a bus stop, he put down the receiver. She went twice to her husbands place in Hyderabad but they did not open the doors to her.

4. When her husbands brother threatened her with serious consequence if she were to persist her attempts to see Dr. Jameeluddin, she sent a telegram to the Honble Chief Justice of this Court alleging that her father-in-law, Sharfuddin Ahmed, was not allowing her to meet her husband and that her husband was wrongfully confined. Treating this telegram as a writ petition, notices were issued by this Court to the Sub-Inspector, Commissioner of Police, the Director-General of Police and Dr. Jameeluddin. The statement of the petitioner was recorded during the in-camera proceedings in the Chambers on 7-8-1996. She narrated in detail how she was lured by Dr. Jameeluddin into marrying him, the promises made and broken by him.

5. Dr. Jameeluddin filed a counter-affidavit admitting his marriage under the Special Marriage Act with the petitioner and the letters he wrote from Saudi Arabia to her. One starting revelation he made in the counter-affidavit was that as his parents forced him, he married another woman under the Muslim Law and that his second wife was not aware of his marriage with the petitioner. Ex. B-1 is the photo copy of the marriage certificate filed by Dr. Jameeluddin issued by the A.P. Wakf Board dated 28-12-1992 and it says that he married Shazia Tabassum daughter of Gulam Mohiuddin on 30th November, 1992. He also stated that after coming to Hyderabad, he could not meet the petitioner for four or five days, for which she became restless and contacted him on telephone and as she has been "insisting upon my coming and staying with her, I was forced to avoid meeting the petitioner, due to ill-health of my second wife and out of fear that my parents may come to know about our marriage". As he did not meet the petitioner, the latter sent a copy of the marriage certificate under the Special Marriage Act certifying about their marriage to his father and then his family members came to know about his marriage with the petitioner. They rebuked him for marrying Radhika, the petitioner, against the custom. In order to escape from the situation the petitioner threatening to come to his house and his father and family members rebuking him for having married the petitioner - he, on the pretext of going to Bombay, went to his second wifes parents house at Red Hills in Hyderabad and that was mistaken by the petitioner that he was wrongfully confined by his father. He also averred in the counter-affidavit that he met the petitioner in the office of one Aleem (working as a Superintendent, E.S.I. Corporation) and offered to take a flat on rent to keep her there.

6. The disclosure in the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin, he marrying another woman came as a rude shock to the petitioner. During the in-camera proceedings, she showed signs of acute depression and nervous break down and started crying that her life was ruined completely and that her husband had deceived her pretending all these years that he would come and take her back to Riyadh suppressing the fact that he already was married to another woman. It was also disclosed during the in-camera hearing that the fourth respondent has a son by the second wife and that the latter is again in the family way. The photo copies of the letters written by the fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin, to the petitioner filed before us show him falsely as a fond and devoted husband longing for the company of his wife, the petitioner. He also described his unbearable loneliness in far-off Riyadh and his eagerness to take her back. In one of the letters, he promised to purchase a house in her name in a good locality in Hyderabad. In another letter dated 22-12-1994, he promised to send Rs. 10,000/- towards her pocket expenses; Rs. 50,000/- in another letter. In yet another letter dated 16-11-1995, he acknowledged the sacrifice she made for a period of three years and promised to see her in March/April, 1996 and take her back to Riyadh. The other letters also speak of his love and longing and his sadness to live alone in Riyadh. In reality, it is admitted before us, Dr. Jameeluddin did not send a single paise to the petitioner during all the years he was in Riyadh drawing a fat salary in a highly remunerative job. Although he denied in the counter-affidavit the allegation of the petitioner that she helped him in the preparation of his doctoral thesis, the acknowledgment part of his thesis, a photo-copy of which is filed before us, clearly shows the gratitude expressed by Dr. Jameeluddin to Radhika (the petitioner herein) "for her sincere co-operation throughout the course of these studies."

7. The fact that Dr. Jameeluddin kept his second marriage a closely guarded secret from the petitioner itself shows his cunning and deceitful nature. He married the petitioner, a well educated girl with good and respectable family background promising a rosy future to her. We cannot conceive of any other debased form of betrayal of trust by a person of the academic accomplishments and stature of the fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin.

8. The petitioner expressed her eagerness to go and live with Dr. Jameeluddin in Riyadh, provided he divorces his second wife. But the fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin, was not willing for this. According to him, his second wife is running a school in Riyadh and since the Saudi law forbids bigamous marriages, he is prepared to continue the relationship with the petitioner if she is willing to stay in his parents house in Hyderabad. If she is not willing to stay with his parents, he says, he will keep her in a separate house in Hyderabad and give maintenance to her and continue his relationship as husband and wife, cohabiting with her during his sojourns in Hyderabad. To this course of action suggested by Dr. Jameeluddin, expressing shock and indignation, the petitioner became very angry and said that she would never agree for such a proposal - palpably an indecent proposal to which no woman would accede to.

9. Having married the petitioner under the Special Marriage Act, the fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin, cannot ruin her life by taking another wife under the Muslim Law after making alluring promises and painting a rosy future. When her advocate, Smt. Rekha Prasad, tried to console and convince her that she must think of an alternative, after a good deal of persuasion by the advocate, she ultimately agreed that although money would never be a compensation for the traumatic condition into which she was entrapped by the treachery and deceit of Dr. Jameeluddin, she would try to start her life afresh if a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs was given to her by the fourth respondent in full settlement of all her claims. Once again, the fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin, showed his meanness by saying that he would give only Rs. 50,000/-, in full settlement and this was stated by his advocate, Sri Das, during the in-camera hearing after obtaining instructions from him.

10. Sri Das, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, says that the second marriage of his client under the Muslim Law can never be faulted as, under the Muslim Law, four marriages are permitted. This contention is totally misconceived. It is true that under the Muslim Law, a man can have as many as four wives at a time. But the marriage of the fourth respondent with the petitioner had taken place, admittedly, not under the Muslim Law but under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as is evident from Ex. A-1, photo-copy of the marriage certificate. Restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity and divorce must, therefore, be in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapters V and VI of the above Act. Having married under the Special Marriage Act, if a person again contracts a second marriage, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 494 or 495 IPC. Section 44 of the Special Marriage Act lays down :

"44. Punishment for bigamy :- Every person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act and who, during the lifetime of his or her wife or husband, contracts any other marriage shall be subject to the penalties provided in Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), for the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife, and the marriage so contracted shall be void."

The fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin, though a Muslim is not immune from prosecution under Section 494 or Section 495 IPC in view of the explicit language of Section 44 of the Special Marriage Act. Likewise, the petitioner converting into Islam will not disentitle her from prosecuting her husband for bigamy since their marriage was under the Special Marriage Act but not under the Muslim personal law.

11. Dealing with a case arising under Section 16 of the old Special Marriage Act, 1872, which is in pari materia with Section 44 of the present Act, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Vaidyanathan v. Abdul Allam, AIR 1946 Madras 446 speaking through Leach C.J., held :

"Section 16, Special Marriage Act, provides that a person married under it, who, during the lifetime of his or her wife or husband contracts another marriage, shall be subject to the penalties provided in Ss. 494 and 495, Penal Code, for the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife, whatever may be the religion which he or she professed at the time of the second marriage. Therefore, a person married under the Special Marriage Act commits bigamy if he marries again during the lifetime of his spouse, and it matters not what religion he professes at the time of the second marriage ......... The Special Marriage Act clearly only contemplates monogamy and a person married under the Act cannot escape from its provisions by merely changing his religion."

12. Having regard to the uncontroversial facts the marriage of the fourth respondent with the petitioner under the Special Marriage Act, as is evident from Ex. A-1, and his subsequent marriage under the Muslim Law with Shazia Tabassum, as is evident from Ex. B-1 - the fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin, is liable to be prosecuted for the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Dr. Jameeluddin, the fourth respondent, cheated two innocent women, on his own admission. The petitioner was not aware of his second marriage with Shazia Tabassum nor the latter was aware of his first marriage with Radhika, the petitioner herein. Although the second marriage of the fourth respondent is void under Section 44 of the Special Marriage Act, we do not want to give a declaration to that effect as the second wife, Shazia Tabassum, is not a party to these proceedings.

13. This public interest litigation case is covered by paragraph 6 of the guidelines issued by the Honble Supreme Court of India for entertaining PIL cases - complaints concerning atrocities on women. It is well settled that in a PIL case, adversary procedure assumes little relevance and the Court is enjoined to render complete justice taking into consideration the fact situation, the magnitude of the injury and the nature of the breaches of law complained of. The fourth respondent herein, Dr. Jameeluddin, played havoc with the life of the petitioner. He not only betrayed her trust totally and ruined her life completely, but also misled another innocent woman, Shazia Tabassum, into marrying him under the Muslim Law, keeping her in dark about his marriage with the petitioner. His pretensions of innocence that because of the pressure of his parents, he contracted a second marriage under the Muslim Law smack of his crafty attitude contrived to somehow extricate himself from the present situation. He deserves no sympathy. A man who plays with the lives and careers of innocent women should be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. The law will catch up with such a person should be brought home to him so as to be a deterrent to all others of his ilk, who try to put-manoeuvre the legal system treating women as play things meant for pleasure.

14. For the shock and trauma suffered by the petitioner by reason of the treachery perpetrated by the fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin, we think it but fair to pass an appropriate order compensating her in terms of money. Presently, she is entrapped in a tragedy; her future is gloomy and highly uncertain. She has suffered a serious social stigma as a deserted and abandoned wife of Dr. Jameeluddin. His readiness to treat her as his wife during his sojourns in Hyderabad and maintain her by meeting her expenses will not give her the status of a wife, since bigamy is prohibited by the Special Marriage Act. Being an educated woman, coming from a respectable background, she, very rightly, spurned this debased and illegal offer made by the fourth-respondent. She will continue to be the target of ridicule, scorn and humiliation in her own circles-family, social and official. She is hardly 30 years old with a nightmarish past and dark future. Her marital happiness lasted only a jiffy like a colourful dream. There can never be a proper reparation. Money - whatever be the quantum - is hardly a compensatory factor. Even so, courts of law and equity cannot but evaluate any situation in no terms other than pecuniary, while exercising Civil Jurisdiction, in order to enable the victim to make efforts to absorb the shock. The fourth respondents present income, as we could discern from his letter dated 12-7-1994, is Rs. 4,800 Saudi Riyals per month, which in terms of Indian currency, comes approximately to Rs. 45,000/- (the current exchange rate is Rs. 9.65 per Riyal). We, therefore, provisionally estimate the compensation, the petitioner is entitled to, at Rs. 5 (five lakhs) and this amount shall be paid by the fourth respondent Dr. Jameeluddin, to her within three months from today. However, we make it clear that this will not preclude the petitioner from bringing a separate civil action, claiming higher amount of compensation.

15. We have considered the aspect whether straightway we should direct the Mahila Court (XXII Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Hyderabad), whose jurisdiction covers matrimonial offences, to take cognizance of the offence under Section 494 IPC on the basis of the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner. But the law, as we comprehend it to be, does not seem to permit such a course of action in view of the specific language of Section 198(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which, the complaint to the Court, competent to take cognizance of offences punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code - of which Section 494 constitutes a part - should only be by "some person aggrieved by the offence" and the exceptions to this incorporated in proviso (c) to sub-section (1) exclude the complaint by anyone else including a court, even a higher Court. At any rate, there appears to be no judicial precedent in this regard. We, therefore, hold that it is open to the petitioner to file a complaint before the Mahila Court (XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) and if such a complaint is filed, the Mahila Court shall take cognizance of the same and dispose it of in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than six months from the date of receipt of the complaint.

16. We also make it clear that it is open to the petitioner, if advised, to approach the Family Court for obtaining the reliefs contemplated under the Family Courts Act, 1984. The fourth-respondents passport bearing No. H978436 dated 31-1-1991, which is in deposit with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall continue to be in the custody of this Court until the Civil and Criminal Proceedings against the fourth respondent, if any, are terminated finally. Until the proceedings - both in the civil and criminal courts, if any, - are terminated finally, the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad shall not issue another passport to the fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin either in his name as such or under any other aliases. The fourth respondent, Dr. Jameeluddin, shall not leave this country until all the proceedings against him are finally terminated and the amount of compensation of five lakh rupees, ordered by us, is fully paid. To ensure compliance of this direction, respondents 1 to 3 shall take all necessary steps. The amount of compensation shall be deposited by the fourth respondent with the registry of this Court and the petitioner can withdraw the same.

Exs. A-1, A-2 and B-1, the statement and reply affidavit of the petitioner and counter-affidavit of the fourth respondent shall form annexures to this judgment.

17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as indicated above.

Petition allowed.