Posted on Leave a comment

Suresh Chandra Ghosh [1971 1 SCC 864 = Sky 1971 Sc 1153 = 1971 3 SCR 961]

Suresh Chandra Ghosh [1971 1 SCC 864 = Sky 1971 Sc 1153 = 1971 3 SCR 961]

“Area 17 provides you to definitely one relationships anywhere between several Hindus solemnised immediately following the beginning of Act was gap if the during the go out of these relationship both party had a wife or husband way of life, which the terms out-of areas 494 and 495 ipc should use consequently. The marriage ranging from a couple Hindus try gap because away from Area 17 if the a couple criteria is met: (i) the wedding try solemnised adopting the beginning of Work; (ii) at the go out of such relationship, possibly party got a partner living. In case your labai inside February 1962 can not be allowed to be ‘solemnised’, that marriage may not be gap by the advantage from Area 17 of one’s Act and you can Point 494 IPC doesn’t affect like functions towards the relationship once the had a spouse way of living.”

For the Rakeya Bibi v

twenty eight. Which v. [Sky 1966 Sc 614 = 1966 step 1 SCR 539] The challenge is once more felt in Priya Bala Ghosh v. For the Gopal Lal v. State From Rajasthan [1979 2 SCC 170 = Air 1979 Sc 713 = 1979 dos SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., speaking toward Courtroom, observed due to the fact below: (SCC p. 173, para 5)

“[W]right here a wife deals an additional wedding as the very first wedding continues to be subsisting this new lover might possibly be guilty of bigamy less than Section 494 if it’s turned out the second marriage are a valid one in the sense that the requisite ceremonies requisite by-law or from the customized have been in fact performed. ”

30. In view of above, if one marries one minute day in the life of their wife, such as for instance relationship except that becoming emptiness less than Areas eleven and you will 17 of one’s Hindu Wedding Operate, would constitute an offense and that person would be accountable to-be sued less than Section 494 IPC. When you are Point 17 talks of marriage anywhere between several “Hindus”, Part 494 does not consider one religious denomination.

30. Today, conversion process or apostasy doesn’t automatically dissolve a wedding currently solemnised within the Hindu Matrimony Act. It simply provides a ground getting breakup not as much as Part thirteen. The appropriate percentage of Area thirteen brings because under:

“13. (1) Any matrimony solemnised, whether or not just before otherwise following commencement regarding the Operate, can get, on a great petition shown by both the latest spouse or the partner, end up being demolished by good decree out of divorce or separation on to the floor one others party-

H.P Admn

30. Significantly less than Part 10 that provides getting judicial breakup, conversion process to a different religion is actually a footing getting a great finished from the endment) Work, 1976. The first wedding, ergo, isn’t affected therefore will continue to subsist. In the event your “marital” updates is not influenced because of the wedding nonetheless subsisting, his second relationship qua the present marriage was gap and you may in spite of conversion however become liable to feel charged toward offence from bigamy lower than Area 494.

thirty-two. Alter off faith doesn’t melt the marriage performed under the Hindu Wedding Act ranging from two Hindus. Apostasy will not bring to an end the fresh municipal loans or the fresh new matrimonial thread, however, apostasy try a ground to have divorce case lower than Section 13 while the and additionally a ground to have official breakup not as much as Part 10 of one’s Hindu y. Even as we have experienced above, this new Hindu y”. A second relationships, within the longevity of this new spouse, is emptiness below Sections 11 and you may 17, besides being an offence.

33. Inside the Govt. out of Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 4 Bom 330 and therefore of course is actually an instance felt like before the getting into force of the Hindu Wedding Act, it had been stored because of the Bombay Large Judge one to in which a beneficial Hindu partnered lady with good Hindu partner life ”, she commits the fresh new offence out of polyandry as the, by mere conversion process, the prior marriage will not go out. One other conclusion centered on this principle try Budansa Rowther v. Fatima Bi Air 1914 Frustrated 192, Emperor v. Ruri Heavens 1919 Lah 389 and you can Jamna Devi v. Mul Raj 1907 forty-two Pr 1907. Anil Kumar Mukherji ILR 1948 dos Cal 119 it had been stored one under Hindu law, brand new apostasy of a single of the partners cannot reduce the new relationship. In the Sayeda Khatoon v. Yards. Obadiah 1944-forty five 49 CWN 745 it actually was kept one a wedding solemnised inside the Asia predicated on you to private law cannot be demolished in respect to another individual laws simply because among the many people enjoys changed their religion.

Tinggalkan Balasan

Alamat email Anda tidak akan dipublikasikan.