“Area 17 will bring that one wedding between a few Hindus solemnised just after the start of your Operate is actually void when the from the time of such matrimony often class Hot Women Single i nГ¦rheten av deg got a husband or wife living, and that the fresh new conditions out-of areas 494 and you can 495 ipc should pertain consequently. The wedding anywhere between two Hindus try emptiness in view off Section 17 in the event that two conditions try found: (i) the wedding is actually solemnised after the beginning of Act; (ii) during the time of such wedding, often party got a wife lifestyle. In the event your labai when you look at the February 1962 can’t be said to be ‘solemnised’, one to marriage may not be void of the advantage out of Part 17 of your own Operate and you may Area 494 IPC does not apply to such people towards wedding because the got a wife way of living.”
Into the Rakeya Bibi v
twenty-eight. It v. [Sky 1966 Sc 614 = 1966 step 1 SCR 539] The challenge are again considered into the Priya Bala Ghosh v. When you look at the Gopal Lal v. Condition From Rajasthan [1979 dos SCC 170 = Sky 1979 South carolina 713 = 1979 dos SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., speaking on Legal, seen given that below: (SCC p. 173, para 5)
“[W]right here a partner deals one minute wedding because the very first wedding has been subsisting the fresh spouse would be accountable for bigamy under Part 494 if it is turned-out that 2nd relationship is a legitimate one in the feeling the expected ceremonies required legally or of the personalized was indeed in reality performed. ”
31. Because of your own above, if a person marries a moment day during the lifetime of their spouse, such as wedding aside from getting gap less than Parts eleven and 17 of your Hindu Marriage Work, would comprise an offence hence person is liable becoming sued lower than Point 494 IPC. While you are Section 17 speaks from marriage ranging from two “Hindus”, Part 494 doesn’t make reference to people religious denomination.
31. Now, sales or apostasy cannot automatically melt a marriage currently solemnised according to the Hindu Marriage Operate. It simply provides a footing getting divorce or separation below Part thirteen. The appropriate portion of Part thirteen provides given that below:
“13. (1) Any relationship solemnised, whether prior to or following the beginning of the Act, will get, to the good petition displayed because of the both the husband or perhaps the partner, feel dissolved by good decree regarding split up on the ground you to definitely the other party-
29. Significantly less than Area ten that gives to have judicial break up, sales to another religion is becoming a footing having an excellent concluded by the endment) Operate, 1976. The initial relationship, for this reason, isn’t impacted plus it continues to subsist. When your “marital” standing isn’t inspired because of the marriage nevertheless subsisting, his next relationship qua the present relationship was emptiness and you can despite sales he’d feel prone to become prosecuted to the offence away from bigamy less than Part 494.
thirty-two. Alter off religion cannot dissolve the marriage did beneath the Hindu Marriage Work anywhere between a few Hindus. Apostasy will not give a conclusion the new civil obligations otherwise the fresh new matrimonial thread, however, apostasy was a ground getting breakup less than Part thirteen given that as well as a ground getting judicial breakup less than Area ten of the Hindu y. While we have experienced above, the fresh new Hindu y”. An extra matrimony, for the life of this new spouse, would be void below Areas eleven and you may 17, in addition to are an offence.
33. In the Govt. off Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 4 Bom 330 and this obviously is an instance felt like prior to the getting into push of the Hindu Wedding Operate, it had been held by the Bombay Large Legal you to definitely in which an excellent Hindu married woman which have an effective Hindu spouse way of life ”, she commits the fresh new offense of polyandry once the, by the mere transformation, the earlier matrimony will not run out. Another decisions based on that it idea are Budansa Rowther v. Fatima Bi Air 1914 Mad 192, Emperor v. Ruri Heavens 1919 Lah 389 and you will Jamna Devi v. Mul Raj 1907 49 Public relations 1907. Anil Kumar Mukherji ILR 1948 2 Cal 119 it had been stored that not as much as Hindu rules, the new apostasy of one of your own partners cannot reduce this new marriage. When you look at the Sayeda Khatoon v. M. Obadiah 1944-forty-five 49 CWN 745 it had been stored one to a married relationship solemnised for the India considering you to definitely individual rules can not be dissolved in respect to another private rules simply because they one of many functions features altered their religion.