Facts: The appellant, Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande, was married to Indubai around 1956. Subsequently, in February 1962, during Indubai's lifetime, he entered into a marriage with Kamlabai. He was charged under Section 494 IPC for committing bigamy.

The State argued that the marriage between the appellant and Kamlabai adhered to the customary practices of the appellant's community for a gandharva form of marriage, thus making it valid. Furthermore, it contended that the validity of the second marriage was irrelevant for the commission of the offense under Section 494 IPC.

Observation: The court observed that under Section 17 of the Act, a marriage between two Hindus is deemed void if, at the time of marriage, either party had a living spouse. The term "solemnize" in this context refers to celebrating the marriage with proper ceremonies and due form. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 17, it is crucial that the marriage be conducted with the necessary ceremonies and formalities. The essential ceremonies for a valid marriage, whether in the Brahma or Asura form, include invocation before the sacred fire and saptapadi.

In this case, it was established that the two essential ceremonies were not performed during the marriage between the appellant and Kamlabai in February 1962. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the marriage adhered to customary rites as mandated by Section 7 of the Act. Additionally, there was no evidence indicating that the performance of these essential ceremonies was waived by the prevailing custom in the community. Consequently, the marriage between the appellant and Kamlabai did not meet the criteria of a "solemnized marriage" as outlined in Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 494 IPC, despite his first wife still being alive at the time of his marriage to Kamlabai in February 1962.