Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.90 seconds)
Gopal Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 January, 1979 cites

Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971

The matter has also been fully discussed in Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh. In view of the authorities of this Court, therefore, the following position emerges: where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting the spouse would be guilty of bigamy under Section 494 if it is proved that the second marriage was a valid one in the sense that the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been actually performed. The voidness of the marriage under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act is in fact one of the essential ingredients of Section 494 because the second marriage will become void only because of the provisions of Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In these circumstances, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mulla that the second marriage being void Section 494 will have no application. It was next contended by Mr. Mulla that there is no legal evidence to show that the second marriage which is said to 1176 be a nata marriage was actually performed. We are afraid, we are unable to go into this question because three courts have concurrently found as a fact that the parties were governed by custom of nata marriage and the two essential ceremonies of this marriage are:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 117 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 1 February, 1965

What Section 17 contemplates is that the second marriage must be according to the ceremonies required by law. If the marriage is void its voidness would only lead to civil consequences arising from such marriage. Section 17 makes it absolutely clear that the provision has to be read in harmony and conjunction with the provisions of Section 494 of the Penal Code which has been extracted above. Section 17 clearly provides that provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Penal Code shall apply accordingly. In other words though the marriage may be void under Section 17, by reason of the fact that it was contracted while the first marriage was subsisting the case squarely falls within the four corners of Section 494 and by contracting the second marriage the accused incurs the penalty imposed by the said statute. Thus the combined effect of Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act and Section 494 I.P.C. is that when a person contracts a second marriage after the coming into force of the said Act, while the first marriage is subsisting he commits the offence of bigamy. (Emphasis ours). This matter no longer res integra as it concluded by a decision of this Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.(1) This Court while considering the question of bigamy qua the provisions of Section 17 observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 141 - R Dayal - Full Document
1