“Section 17 provides you to people relationship anywhere between two Hindus solemnised immediately after the start of the Act is void if at day of these relationship both group had a loved one life, and that new provisions out of sections 494 and you can 495 ipc will implement accordingly. The marriage between one or two Hindus was void because out-of Point 17 if a couple of criteria was satisfied: (i) the wedding is actually solemnised following the commencement of Operate; (ii) in the day of such wedding, possibly people had a spouse living. If your labai in the February 1962 can not be allowed to be ‘solemnised’, you to marriage will never be gap by virtue away from Point 17 of the Work and you will Part 494 IPC doesn’t connect with for example activities towards the relationships while the got a partner traditions.”

Into the Rakeya Bibi v

twenty-eight. So it v. [Heavens 1966 Sc 614 = 1966 step one SCR 539] The problem was once again sensed into the Priya Bala Ghosh v. In the Gopal Lal v. Condition Away from Rajasthan [1979 2 SCC 170 = Sky 1979 Sc 713 = 1979 2 SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., speaking to your Judge, observed because the not as much as: (SCC p. 173, para 5)

“[W]right here a wife deals a second marriage as the earliest matrimony continues to be subsisting the fresh new mate is responsible for bigamy under Point 494 when it is proved your next relationships try a valid one out of the sense your expected ceremonies necessary for legal reasons or because of the personalized was in fact in reality did. ”

29. Because of the significantly more than, if a person marries an additional date in life of their wife, instance marriage besides becoming gap less than Parts eleven and you may 17 of your own Hindu Wedding Operate, could constitute an offense and this person will be liable getting sued not as much as Section 494 IPC. Whenever you are Area 17 speaks regarding matrimony between one or two “Hindus”, Point 494 cannot refer to one religious denomination.

30. Now, conversion or apostasy does not automatically melt a marriage currently solemnised under the Hindu Wedding Operate. They only provides a footing to possess separation and divorce below Point thirteen. The relevant part of Point thirteen will bring due to the fact below:

“thirteen. (1) People relationship solemnised, if or not before otherwise following commencement with the Operate, get, on the an excellent petition demonstrated because of the sometimes the husband or the partner, getting demolished because of the a decree off breakup on the ground you to others team-

H.P Admn

29. Significantly less than Part ten that offers having judicial sexy Vietnam jenter break up, sales to some other religion became a footing to own good ended from the endment) Work, 1976. The first relationship, hence, is not influenced and it continues to subsist. In case your “marital” condition isn’t inspired because of the wedding however subsisting, his 2nd matrimony qua current relationship might possibly be void and you may despite conversion he would be liable to be charged toward offense away from bigamy significantly less than Point 494.

32. Change from faith will not melt the wedding performed underneath the Hindu Matrimony Work ranging from a few Hindus. Apostasy cannot provide a conclusion the fresh municipal financial obligation or the brand new matrimonial thread, however, apostasy was a footing to have separation not as much as Part thirteen while the also a ground to own judicial breakup below Area ten of your Hindu y. While we have experienced over, the new Hindu y”. A moment matrimony, into the life of the fresh new lover, is void around Parts 11 and you can 17, as well as becoming an offence.

33. In Govt. off Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 4 Bom 330 which however is an instance felt like ahead of the being received by force of your Hindu Relationships Operate, it had been stored of the Bombay Highest Courtroom you to where an excellent Hindu hitched woman having a great Hindu husband life style ”, she commits the brand new offense regarding polyandry because, by the simple transformation, the prior marriage does not go out. Others choices based on this concept is 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 Publicity 1907. Anil Kumar Mukherji ILR 1948 dos Cal 119 it had been kept you to definitely lower than Hindu law, the latest apostasy of 1 of the partners doesn’t dissolve brand new marriage. In the Sayeda Khatoon v. Meters. Obadiah 1944-forty five forty two CWN 745 it actually was kept one a marriage solemnised during the Asia predicated on one to personal law cannot be demolished according to some other private laws simply because they one of the functions possess changed their particular faith.