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

“Section 17 will bring you to one relationship anywhere between one or two Hindus solemnised just after the beginning of your own Operate are emptiness in the event that within big date of these relationship possibly people had a loved one life style, hence the terms away from areas 494 and you may 495 ipc will pertain appropriately. The wedding between a few Hindus was void in view out of Part 17 in the event that two criteria is fulfilled: (i) the wedding is actually solemnised following the beginning of your own Operate; (ii) during the time of these matrimony, possibly group had a spouse life. In case the labai inside March 1962 cannot be supposed to be ‘solemnised‘, you to definitely wedding may not be emptiness by advantage of Part 17 of your own Operate and you can Part 494 IPC does not connect with including parties to your relationships just like the got a spouse living.”

During the Rakeya Bibi v

twenty eight. That it v. [Air 1966 Sc 614 = 1966 1 SCR 539] The challenge is once again sensed within the Priya Bala Ghosh v. Within the Gopal Lal v. County Out-of Rajasthan [1979 dos SCC 170 = Heavens 1979 Sc 713 = 1979 2 SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., speaking on Court, noticed while the not as much as: (SCC p. 173, para poder 5)

“[W]right here a wife contracts an extra wedding once the first marriage remains subsisting brand new companion was accountable for bigamy significantly less than Part 494 in case it is proved that the next wedding was a legitimate one in the feeling your required ceremonies requisite for legal reasons or from the individualized had been actually performed. ”

30. In view of the above, if one marries an extra date in the life of their wife, such relationships except that getting gap not as much as Parts eleven and you can 17 of your Hindu Relationships Work, could compose an offence and that individual would-be responsible become charged significantly less than Point 494 IPC. If you find yourself Part 17 speaks out-of matrimony anywhere between a few “Hindus”, Point 494 doesn’t reference one spiritual denomination.

30. Today, sales or apostasy cannot immediately melt a marriage currently solemnised underneath the Hindu Wedding Act. They simply brings a ground to have divorce below Section 13. The appropriate portion of Section 13 brings due to the fact lower than:

“thirteen. (1) One wedding solemnised, whether or not prior to or following the commencement regarding the Work, will get, on a beneficial petition demonstrated of the both the new spouse or perhaps the partner, feel demolished by an excellent decree out of splitting up on the ground you to definitely additional cluster-

H.P Admn

31. Lower than Section ten that gives getting official separation, sales to some other faith is becoming a ground to kuuma sinkku naiset verkossa nyt own good concluded because of the endment) Work, 1976. The original relationship, ergo, isn’t affected and it will continue to subsist. If for example the “marital” condition isn’t impacted on account of the marriage nonetheless subsisting, his next relationship qua the current relationship was void and you can regardless of conversion process he’d be prone to become prosecuted on the offense of bigamy not as much as Part 494.

thirty two. Changes out-of faith will not dissolve the wedding performed beneath the Hindu Relationship Work ranging from two Hindus. Apostasy cannot bring to an end new municipal obligations otherwise this new matrimonial bond, however, apostasy try a ground to own split up not as much as Point 13 because together with a ground getting judicial separation around Point ten of your own Hindu y. As we have experienced above, the Hindu y”. A second relationship, in longevity of the latest mate, was void not as much as Areas eleven and you will 17, as well as becoming an offence.

33. When you look at the Govt. regarding Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 cuatro Bom 330 hence needless to say is actually a situation decided prior to the getting into push of one’s Hindu Relationships Act, it was held because of the Bombay Higher Courtroom one to in which a beneficial Hindu hitched woman that have an effective Hindu spouse traditions ”, she commits the new offense out of polyandry due to the fact, because of the simple conversion process, the earlier relationship doesn’t drain. One other decisions centered on it principle was Budansa Rowther v. Fatima Bi Heavens 1914 Resentful 192, Emperor v. Ruri Air 1919 Lah 389 and you will Jamna Devi v. Mul Raj 1907 forty-two Advertising 1907. Anil Kumar Mukherji ILR 1948 2 Cal 119 it had been kept you to definitely less than Hindu legislation, the fresh apostasy of just one of the partners does not reduce this new wedding. Within the Sayeda Khatoon v. Yards. Obadiah 1944-forty five 44 CWN 745 it was held that a marriage solemnised from inside the India according to one personal legislation cannot be dissolved in respect to a different personal law given that they one of the people features changed their religion.