Holding that bigamy is 'moral turpitude', the Madras high court has upheld the ban on a chartered accountant from practising on the ground of bigamy. P Mohanasundaram, a Chennai-based chartered accountant, was removed from the register by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in 2010 based on the complaint filed by his estranged wife. 

Confirming a single judge's decision not to interfere with the removal, the first bench comprising acting Chief Justice R K Agrawal and Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar said on Tuesday: "Mohanasundaram married another woman while the first marriage was subsisting. We are of the view that the offence of bigamy comes within the meaning of 'moral turpitude'." 

Pointing out that Section 8 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 clearly stated that moral turpitude was a valid ground for removal of a person from the register, the judges said Mohanasundaram had been convicted for bigamy by a magistrate court in May 1999 and sentenced to one year in jail. 

The conviction was upheld by a sessions court in January 2000, and his jail term was reduced to six months by the high court in February 2003. The Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence to the period he had already served in prison. 

In the meanwhile, acting on his wife's complaint, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India's southern regional council wrote to him on July 5, 2009 saying a bigamous marriage would invite disqualification and asked him to appear for an enquiry on January 13, 2009 in New Delhi to explain as to why his name should not be removed from the register of members. After he refused to participate in the hearing, his name was removed on April 16, 2010. 

As for Mohanasundaram's contention that he was not heard before his name was removed, the judges said the plea was unsustainable because despite getting an opportunity, he refused to attend the hearing. "A person, who refuses to appear in spite of receipt of notice for appearance, cannot be allowed to raise the plea of violation of principles of natural justice," they said. 

Stating that Mohanasundaram and his estranged wife's marriage is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the bench said, adding that Section 17 of the Act states that marriage between two Hindus is void if two conditions are satisfied — the marriage is solemnized after the commencement of the Act, and on the date of such marriage, either party had a husband or wife living. "Thus, it is evident that if a Hindu marries a person despite having a spouse living, he/she shall be liable to be prosecuted for bigamy," the judges said. (Times of India)