Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.77 seconds)The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 12 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 26 in The Special Marriage Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Pandey Son Of Ramesh ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 3 July, 2006
The impugned order also refers to some other decision dated 5.4.2006 rendered in the case of Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., details thereof are not referred. The impugned order also refers to Rule 29 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1956') which, according to the Commandant, says that second marriage during subsistence of first one renders the subsequent one invalid.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001
Jinia Keotin & Ors vs Kumar Sitaram Manjhi & Ors on 20 December, 2002
Section 16 of the Act while engrafting a Rule of fiction in ordaining the children, though illegitimate, to be treated as legitimate, notwithstanding that the marriage was void or voidable, chose also to confine its application, so far as succession or inheritance by such children is concerned, to the properties of parents only [2003(1) SCC 730, Jinia Keotin and Ors. vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and Ors.]
Viewed in the light of the aforesaid provision the order impugned herein and the reasoning given therein cannot be sustained. Reliance placed upon Rule 29 is absolutely misplaced as the said Rule makes the second marriage during the subsistence of the first a misconduct on the part of the employee, but this does not mean that the children born of the said wedlock would not be entitled to the benefits which a legitimate child would get.