“Point 17 will bring one any wedding ranging from a couple of Hindus solemnised shortly after the beginning of your Operate is emptiness in the event that on big date of these marriage sometimes cluster got a husband or wife way of life, which the new specifications regarding sections 494 and you will 495 ipc should pertain consequently. The marriage ranging from one or two Hindus try emptiness because out of Section 17 when the a few criteria try met: (i) the wedding is solemnised following beginning of your Work; (ii) within go out of these relationship, possibly class had a partner way of living. If your labai for the February 1962 cannot be allowed to be ‘solemnised’, one to wedding will never be void because of the virtue from Section 17 of the Work and you can Area 494 IPC does not apply to particularly functions to your matrimony while the had a wife way of living.”
When you look at the Rakeya Bibi v
twenty eight. So it v. [Air 1966 South carolina 614 = 1966 step 1 SCR 539] The problem is once more felt during the Priya Bala Ghosh v. From inside the Gopal Lal v. County Out-of Rajasthan [1979 dos SCC 170 = Heavens 1979 South carolina 713 = 1979 2 SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., speaking into Court, noticed since less than: (SCC p. 173, para poder 5)
“[W]here a wife contracts the next marriage because the very first relationships remains subsisting this new mate could well be responsible for bigamy lower than Point 494 in case it is ended up the second relationships is a valid one out of the sense your required ceremonies expected by-law or by customized was basically actually did. ”
31. In view of your a lot more than, if an individual marries one minute big date from inside the life of his wife, instance relationship apart from becoming gap not as much as Parts eleven and you can 17 of the Hindu Relationship Act, would compose an offence and therefore individual would-be liable to get prosecuted lower than Area 494 IPC. When you’re Part 17 talks regarding wedding anywhere between several “Hindus”, Area 494 doesn’t make reference to any religious denomination.
30. Now, conversion process or apostasy does not immediately dissolve a marriage currently solemnised underneath the Hindu Relationships Act. They only will bring a footing getting split up under Point 13. The relevant portion of Part 13 provides while the under:
“13. (1) One matrimony solemnised, if or not just before or pursuing the beginning of the Operate, may, towards the an effective petition showed by either new spouse or the wife, feel mixed because of the a great decree out-of divorce or separation on to the ground that others class-
H.P Admn
30. Lower than Part 10 that offers to possess official breakup, sales to another religion has started to become a footing for an excellent concluded of the endment) Work, 1976. The first marriage, ergo, is not affected also it will continue to subsist. In case the “marital” standing isn’t impacted because of the marriage nevertheless subsisting, their second relationship qua the existing matrimony would-be gap and you can in spite of conversion process he’d getting prone to end up being sued for the offense of bigamy not as much as Area 494.
thirty two. Changes regarding religion will not dissolve the wedding did within the Hindu Relationships Act ranging from one or two Hindus. Apostasy does not give an end this new municipal personal debt otherwise the latest matrimonial bond, but apostasy try a footing getting separation lower than Part thirteen as the in addition to a footing for official break up under Area ten of your Hindu y. Even as we have observed a lot more than, the fresh Hindu y”. An additional relationship, in the lifetime of the fresh lover, is void under Areas 11 and you will 17, in addition to becoming an offense.
33. For the Govt. of Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 cuatro Bom 330 and therefore without a doubt are a situation decided prior to the entering push of Hindu Marriage Work, it was stored of the Bombay High Courtroom you to in which an effective Hindu hitched lady with a great Hindu partner lifestyle ”, she commits the latest offence of polyandry just like the, of the simple conversion process, the last wedding cannot come to an end. One other choices predicated on which principle try Budansa Rowther v. Fatima Bi Sky 1914 Upset 192, Emperor v. Ruri Heavens 1919 Lah 389 and you can Jamna Devi v. Mul Raj 1907 49 Publicity 1907. Anil Kumar Mukherji ILR 1948 dos Cal 119 it absolutely was stored you to definitely around Hindu law, the newest apostasy of a single of your own partners cannot dissolve the brand new relationships. In the Sayeda Khatoon v. Yards. Obadiah 1944-forty-five forty two CWN 745 hot Rumensk jente it absolutely was held you to a married relationship solemnised when you look at the Asia centered on you to definitely personal legislation cannot be demolished in respect to some other personal legislation given that they among the functions features altered their religion.