Suresh Chandra Ghosh [1971 step 1 SCC 864 = Air 1971 South carolina 1153 = 1971 step 3 SCR 961]

Suresh Chandra Ghosh [1971 step 1 SCC 864 = Air 1971 South carolina 1153 = 1971 step 3 SCR 961]

“Section 17 will bring one to any marriage ranging from two Hindus solemnised once the beginning of your own Act are emptiness when the from the go out of these marriage possibly party got a loved one life, hence this new provisions away from areas 494 and you may 495 ipc should apply consequently. The marriage anywhere between one or two Hindus is emptiness in view of Part 17 when the one or two criteria was came across: (i) the wedding is actually solemnised following the beginning of one’s Act; (ii) at the time of such marriage, either people got a wife traditions. In the event your labai for the March 1962 can not be said to be ‘solemnised’, that relationships won’t be gap by the virtue off Part 17 of your own Act and you can Point 494 IPC doesn’t affect instance activities to your marriage while the got a spouse way of life.”

Into the Rakeya Bibi v

twenty eight. Which v. [Heavens 1966 Sc 614 = 1966 step one SCR 539] The challenge was once more noticed in Priya Bala Ghosh v. During the Gopal Lal v. County Out of Rajasthan [1979 2 SCC 170 = Sky 1979 South carolina 713 = 1979 dos SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., talking into the Legal, observed once the under: (SCC p. 173, para 5)

“[W]here a spouse contracts another wedding as earliest wedding is still subsisting the brand new companion would be responsible for bigamy less than Section 494 in case it is turned-out that the 2nd marriage was a legitimate one out of the sense that the necessary ceremonies requisite legally otherwise from the custom had been in fact did. ”

31. In view of the above, if a person marries a second big date when you look at the life of their spouse, such relationships besides becoming emptiness less than Parts eleven and you can 17 of one’s Hindu Wedding Work, would constitute an offense and therefore individual might be liable getting sued significantly less than Area 494 IPC. When you’re Point 17 speaks out of relationship between two “Hindus”, Point 494 doesn’t consider people spiritual denomination.

31. Today, sales or apostasy will not immediately melt a wedding currently solemnised underneath the Hindu Relationship Work. They merely brings a footing for divorce proceedings below Section 13. The relevant portion of Area 13 provides as the less than:

“13. (1) Any marriage solemnised, if or not prior to or following the commencement of Operate, will get, towards good petition showed from the either the fresh partner and/or partner, be demolished by a beneficial decree from divorce case on to the floor one to additional class-

H.P Admn

30. Not as much as Point 10 which provides to possess judicial separation, transformation to another religion is a footing to possess a great finished from the endment) Work, 1976. The first relationships, ergo, isn’t inspired and it also continues to subsist. In case your “marital” standing isn’t impacted due to the marriage nonetheless subsisting, his next wedding qua the existing relationship would-be gap and you can notwithstanding conversion process he’d end up being liable to feel prosecuted on the offense from bigamy under Section 494.

32. Transform regarding faith does not dissolve the marriage performed in Hindu Relationship Operate ranging from a few Hindus. Apostasy will not give a finish brand new civil personal debt otherwise the latest matrimonial bond, however, apostasy is actually a ground getting divorce or separation lower than Part 13 due to the fact plus a footing to own judicial break up less than Part ten of the Hindu y. As we have experienced over, the brand new Hindu y”. A moment relationship, from inside the lifetime of the new companion, was void significantly less than Parts 11 and 17, and getting an offence.

33. Inside the Govt. of Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 4 Bom 330 and that needless to say is an instance decided ahead of the entering push of one’s Hindu Matrimony Operate, it actually was kept because of the Bombay Higher Legal you to definitely in which a good Hindu married woman that have a good Hindu husband living ”, she commits the newest offence from polyandry while the, from the mere conversion, the previous relationship cannot run out. Others conclusion centered on this principle is actually Budansa Rowther v. Fatima Bi Sky 1914 Angry 192, Emperor v. Ruri Heavens 1919 Lah 389 and you can Jamna Devi v. Mul Raj 1907 44 Public relations 1907. Anil Kumar Mukherji ILR 1948 2 Cal 119 it absolutely was kept you to definitely less than Hindu legislation, the latest apostasy of one of one’s partners will not melt the marriage. In Sayeda Khatoon v. Yards. Obadiah 1944-forty five 44 CWN 745 it actually was stored you to definitely a marriage solemnised when you look at the Asia according to you to private laws cannot be demolished according to a different private laws simply because they one of many people has actually changed their yhden Mongolian naiset dating unique religion.


發佈留言必須填寫的電子郵件地址不會公開。 必填欄位標示為 *