Suresh Chandra Ghosh [1971 step one SCC 864 = Sky 1971 Sc 1153 = 1971 step three SCR 961]

Suresh Chandra Ghosh [1971 step one SCC 864 = Sky 1971 Sc 1153 = 1971 step three SCR 961]

“Section 17 provides you to any wedding anywhere between several Hindus solemnised shortly after the start of the Work try gap when the on time of these relationships both team had a loved one way of living, hence the new arrangements out-of parts 494 and you will 495 ipc shall apply properly. The wedding ranging from a few Hindus was gap because out of Part 17 if the two standards try came across: (i) the wedding try solemnised after the commencement of your Operate; (ii) at go out of such relationships, possibly cluster had a partner living. If the labai inside the February 1962 can’t be said to be ‘solemnised’, you to definitely marriage will not be void by the virtue out-of Point 17 of your own Act and you can Area 494 IPC doesn’t apply to particularly events toward matrimony while the had a partner life.”

When you look at the Rakeya Bibi v

twenty-eight. That it v. [Sky 1966 vilkaise linkkiä Sc 614 = 1966 step one SCR 539] The problem try once more considered during the Priya Bala Ghosh v. In the Gopal Lal v. Condition From Rajasthan [1979 dos SCC 170 = Sky 1979 South carolina 713 = 1979 dos SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., talking toward Legal, noticed as significantly less than: (SCC p. 173, con el fin de 5)

“[W]right here a wife contracts an extra relationships because the basic relationships has been subsisting the brand new spouse might be guilty of bigamy under Area 494 if it’s turned out the second relationships is actually a legitimate one in the sense that called for ceremonies required for legal reasons otherwise from the custom had been in fact did. ”

29. Because of your more than, if an individual marries a moment go out within the lifetime of his wife, including wedding aside from becoming void around Parts eleven and you can 17 of the Hindu Marriage Work, would also compensate an offence hence person will be accountable as sued not as much as Part 494 IPC. Whenever you are Part 17 speaks out of matrimony between a few “Hindus”, Section 494 doesn’t refer to one religious denomination.

29. Now, conversion or apostasy cannot automatically melt a marriage currently solemnised beneath the Hindu Matrimony Act. It only provides a footing getting splitting up significantly less than Part thirteen. The appropriate percentage of Part 13 provides since the significantly less than:

“thirteen. (1) Any relationship solemnised, whether in advance of otherwise pursuing the beginning of this Operate, get, towards the good petition exhibited by possibly the latest husband or perhaps the partner, getting dissolved because of the an excellent decree away from divorce or separation on to the floor one to one other team-

H.P Admn

29. Less than Point 10 that provides to own official break up, conversion to a different religion is a ground to have an excellent finished of the endment) Act, 1976. The original relationship, therefore, is not impacted and it also will continue to subsist. In the event the “marital” status isn’t impacted on account of the wedding still subsisting, his next matrimony qua the existing marriage would be gap and you can regardless of conversion process however end up being liable to become sued for the offence away from bigamy around Area 494.

32. Changes out of faith does not dissolve the wedding performed beneath the Hindu Matrimony Operate anywhere between two Hindus. Apostasy cannot bring to an end new municipal obligations otherwise the brand new matrimonial bond, but apostasy are a ground to own separation and divorce significantly less than Part 13 since the plus a footing getting official separation around Part 10 of Hindu y. Even as we have experienced above, the fresh Hindu y”. The next relationships, within the lifetime of the fresh new partner, might possibly be emptiness below Parts eleven and you may 17, besides getting an offense.

33. In Govt. regarding Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 cuatro Bom 330 which needless to say is an instance decided prior to the entering push of one’s Hindu Marriage Act, it actually was kept by the Bombay High Judge that in which an excellent Hindu partnered woman which have good Hindu partner lifestyle ”, she commits the fresh new offense out-of polyandry due to the fact, because of the simple sales, the previous matrimony will not drain. Another choices according to which principle was Budansa Rowther v. Fatima Bi Air 1914 Furious 192, Emperor v. Ruri Sky 1919 Lah 389 and you may Jamna Devi v. Mul Raj 1907 forty-two Public relations 1907. Anil Kumar Mukherji ILR 1948 2 Cal 119 it had been stored that lower than Hindu laws, the new apostasy of a single of your own spouses does not dissolve this new matrimony. In the Sayeda Khatoon v. Yards. Obadiah 1944-forty five forty two CWN 745 it absolutely was held you to definitely a wedding solemnised inside the Asia considering one individual rules can not be mixed according to a different private rules simply because they among the functions has actually altered their religion.

No Comments

Give a Reply