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


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

“Section 17 brings you to definitely one relationships ranging from a couple of Hindus solemnised immediately following the beginning of the Act was gap when the in the time of such relationships sometimes class had a wife or husband life, and therefore this new terms out-of parts 494 and 495 ipc will apply correctly. The wedding anywhere between a couple of Hindus was emptiness because out of Point 17 in the event that one or two standards is actually found: (i) the wedding are solemnised adopting the commencement of the Work; (ii) on go out of such marriage, either group got a partner living. In case the labai when you look at the February 1962 can’t be said to be ‘solemnised’, you to definitely relationships may not be gap because of the virtue of Part 17 of your own Operate and you can Area 494 IPC cannot apply at particularly events for the wedding while the had a spouse life.”

From inside the Rakeya Bibi v

twenty-eight. So it v. [Air 1966 Sc 614 = 1966 step one SCR 539] The matter is once more believed in Priya Bala Ghosh v. From inside the Gopal Lal v. Condition Away from Rajasthan [1979 2 SCC 170 = Air 1979 Sc 713 = 1979 dos SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., talking on the Judge, seen given that around: (SCC p. 173, para 5)

“[W]right here a wife contracts the next matrimony just like the basic matrimony continues to be subsisting brand new lover was accountable for bigamy lower than Section 494 if it is proved your 2nd relationship is a valid one in the feeling that the requisite ceremonies called for by law otherwise from the individualized were indeed performed. ”

30. In view of one’s a lot more than, if an individual marries a moment time during the lifetime of his wife, particularly marriage besides are gap less than Areas eleven and you can 17 of Hindu Wedding Operate, could make-up an offence and that people was accountable become prosecuted around Section 494 IPC. If you are Part 17 talks from marriage ranging from several “Hindus”, Point 494 cannot relate to any spiritual denomination.

31. Now, transformation otherwise apostasy doesn’t immediately reduce a married relationship currently solemnised within the Hindu Relationship Operate. They just provides a ground to have splitting up significantly less than Area thirteen. The appropriate portion of Section 13 provides due to the fact below:

“13. (1) One wedding solemnised, if or not ahead of otherwise pursuing the beginning of Work, may, with the an effective petition displayed from the both the partner or the wife, feel demolished by a good decree out-of breakup on to the ground that another group-

H.P Admn

31. Not as much as Area ten that provides to possess judicial break up, conversion to another faith is now a footing to own a beneficial ended from the endment) Work, 1976. The initial relationship, therefore, isn’t affected and it also continues to subsist. In case your “marital” reputation isn’t impacted due to the wedding nevertheless subsisting, his second wedding qua the present matrimony was gap and you can despite sales however be liable to getting charged to the offence off bigamy significantly less than Section 494.

32. Transform regarding religion cannot melt the marriage did in Hindu Wedding Act ranging from a couple Hindus. Apostasy will not give an end the new municipal debt or the matrimonial thread, however, apostasy try a ground to own breakup around Point 13 because along with a footing getting judicial separation below Section ten of your own Hindu y. Even as we have seen over, brand new Hindu y”. A moment relationships, when you look at the lifetime of brand new spouse, would be emptiness not as much as Parts eleven and you will 17, and becoming an offense.

33. Inside Govt. from Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 cuatro Bom 330 and that needless to say is a situation felt like before the entering force of your own Hindu Relationships Act, it had been stored of the Bombay Large Courtroom one in which good Hindu partnered lady with an excellent Hindu partner living ”, she commits this new offence regarding polyandry while the, by the mere conversion, the prior relationship will not run out. Additional behavior centered on which principle are Budansa Rowther v. Fatima Bi Heavens 1914 Angry 192, Emperor v. Ruri Heavens 1919 Lah 389 and you can Jamna Devi v. Mul Raj 1907 49 Pr 1907. Anil Kumar Mukherji ILR 1948 2 Cal 119 it was stored you to around Hindu rules, the brand new apostasy of just one of spouses does not melt new relationship. In the Sayeda Khatoon v. M. Obadiah 1944-45 forty two CWN 745 it actually was held you to definitely a wedding solemnised for the Asia predicated on that individual law can’t be mixed in respect to a different personal law given that they among events has changed his or her religion.