“Point 17 brings you to any relationships between a few Hindus solemnised once the commencement of one’s Act try emptiness in the event the during the date of these relationship sometimes group had a wife or husband way of life, which this new provisions from sections 494 and you may 495 ipc will pertain accordingly. The wedding anywhere between two Hindus are emptiness in view of Part 17 in the event the a couple of conditions are came across: (i) the wedding is solemnised after the commencement of Operate; (ii) from the date of such marriage, sometimes cluster got a wife way of living. When your labai in the February 1962 can’t be allowed to be ‘solemnised’, you to marriage won’t be void by advantage out-of Section 17 of your Operate and Section 494 IPC will not connect with like activities on marriage given that got a spouse lifestyle.”
Inside the Rakeya Bibi v
twenty eight. So it v. [Air 1966 South carolina 614 = 1966 step 1 SCR 539] The challenge is actually again believed in Priya Bala Ghosh v. When you look at the Gopal Lal v. Condition Out of Rajasthan [1979 2 SCC 170 = Sky 1979 Sc 713 = 1979 2 SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., speaking for the Court, noticed since the below: (SCC p. 173, para 5)
“[W]here a partner deals the second marriage while the very first relationship continues to be subsisting the spouse could well be accountable for bigamy under Part 494 if it’s proved the second wedding are a legitimate one in the sense that expected ceremonies called for for legal reasons or of the custom was in fact in reality performed. ”
30. Because of above, if one marries an additional date inside lifetime of his partner, particularly relationship aside from becoming emptiness under Parts eleven and you can 17 of the Hindu Matrimony Act, could compensate an offense and this people is responsible to get charged around Area 494 IPC. If you are Point 17 talks out of matrimony ranging from a few “Hindus”, Area 494 doesn’t refer to people religious denomination.
31. Now, conversion or apostasy will not automatically melt a wedding already solemnised according to the Hindu Relationship Act. They simply provides a footing getting divorce proceedings under Point thirteen. The relevant part of Part 13 will bring due to the fact under:
“thirteen. (1) One relationships solemnised, whether or not ahead of otherwise pursuing the commencement regarding the Act, could possibly get, toward a beneficial petition presented by the possibly the new spouse or the wife, feel demolished from the a beneficial decree off divorce on the ground one to additional people-
H.P Admn
29. Under Area ten that provides to have official break up, transformation to another faith is starting to laillinen Ranska postimyynti morsiamet become a ground having a good concluded of the endment) Operate, 1976. The original matrimony, thus, is not influenced therefore will continue to subsist. In the event the “marital” condition isn’t inspired due to the wedding however subsisting, his next relationship qua the current matrimony could well be emptiness and in spite of transformation however be prone to end up being sued toward offense out of bigamy lower than Area 494.
thirty two. Alter out of faith does not melt the marriage performed within the Hindu Relationships Act ranging from a couple of Hindus. Apostasy doesn’t bring to an-end the brand new municipal personal debt or the fresh new matrimonial thread, however, apostasy is actually a ground getting divorce lower than Area thirteen while the in addition to a footing to have judicial breakup significantly less than Point 10 of your own Hindu y. While we have seen over, the newest Hindu y”. A second marriage, in lifetime of brand new companion, could be gap not as much as Sections 11 and 17, and getting an offence.
33. Inside Govt. of Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 4 Bom 330 and that without a doubt are a situation felt like prior to the entering force of Hindu Matrimony Act, it absolutely was kept from the Bombay Highest Legal you to definitely in which an excellent Hindu hitched woman having a good Hindu husband way of living ”, she commits the newest offence out of polyandry due to the fact, because of the simple conversion process, the previous matrimony cannot drain. One other decisions centered on that it idea are Budansa Rowther v. Fatima Bi Heavens 1914 Furious 192, Emperor v. Ruri Air 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 absolutely was stored one less than Hindu laws, the fresh apostasy of one of spouses does not dissolve the newest wedding. In Sayeda Khatoon v. M. Obadiah 1944-45 49 CWN 745 it had been held one a married relationship solemnised within the India predicated on you to individual rules can not be demolished in respect to a different personal rules given that they among functions has actually altered their faith.