Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 188 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Thota Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P.Tr.Princl.Sec.& Anr on 2 September, 2011
In the case of Thota
Venkateswarlu vs. State of A.P. tr. Princl Secretary7 at
para 29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Pashaura Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 13 November, 2009
Submissions: Learned counsel argued that the
petitioners in Crl.P.No.122 of 2019 are the parents of A.1.
Therefore, he submits that Section 494 cannot be applied at
all. He submits that the offence under Section 494 IPC is a
personal offence limited to the person who marries another
during the subsistence of a valid marriage and the spouse is
living. Therefore, he argues that an offence under Section
494 IPC cannot be attributed to the parents. He also submits
that they had no role to play in the so called second marriage
and that therefore, they cannot be charge sheeted. He also
relies upon the judgment reported in Pashaura Singh v.
State of Punjab1 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
wherein the Apex Court has held that the offence under
Section 494 IPC is only attracted when a second marriage is
contracted; when the first marriage is subsisting and the
spouse is living. The counsel points out that in view of the
divorce granted by the Cambridge Court, Section 494 IPC is
not attracted. Learned counsel raises an important point and
1
(2010) 11 SCC 749
6
states that as the alleged offence of bigamy was committed in
England, permission under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is necessary
for pursuing the case.