Section 7A, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Leading Case

-

S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami:

In this case the following sections are put into consideration:

1.     Section 7A, HMA (Hindu Tamilian weddings)

2.     Section 494, IPC (Offence of Bigamy)

Facts: 

1. The appeal of the case was filed in Madras High Court by S. Nagalingam (Appellant) who married Sivagami (Respondent) in 1970 and they had 3 children. 

2. The respondent alleged that the appellant and his mother started ill-treating her and on many occasions she was physically tortured. As a result she left her marital home and started staying with her parents.

3. While the time respondent was staying with her parents, the appellant married another woman, named Kasturi in 1984 in the state of Tamil Nadu,  while he was still married to the respondent.

4. The respondent first filed the criminal complaint for biagamy. The respondent pled “Saptapadi” had not been performed therefore, the second marriage was not a valid marriage. 

Issue: 

Whether the second marriage entered into by appellant with Kasturi was a valid marriage under Hindu Law so as to constitute an offence of Bigamy under Section 494 IPC.

 

Verdict:  

The court held that the marriage of Kasturi and Nagalingam was a valid marriage since their marriage rituals fell under the purview of Section 7A of Hindu marriage act which applies to weddings in Tamil Nadu. The section contains: 

1.     During the ceremony of the marriage the presence of the relatives, friends or any other person could solemnize the marriage, which meant that presence of the priest was not compulsory to constitute a valid marriage.  

2.     Each party to the marriage should declare in the language understood by the parties that each takes other to be his wife or husband, as the case may be. 

3.     The marriage would be completed by a simple ceremony requiring the parties to the marriage to put garland on each other or put a ring on any finger of the other or tie a thali.

 

Sub-section 2(a) of Section 7-A specifically says that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, which makes this marriage a vaild and lawful marriage between Kasturi and Nagalingam because all these rituals mentioned in section 7A were performed as per the witness, as noted during the trial.

 


Saptapadi was held to be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in cases it was admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them that was an essential ceremony, cases cited for reference: Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, Santi Deb Berma v. Kanchan Prava Devi and Laxmi Devi v. Satya Narayan etc.  The appellant in the instant case, however, had no such case that Saptapadi was an essential ceremony for a valid marriage as per the personal law. Therefore, it was proved that the appellant had committed the offence of bigamy as the second marriage took place during the subsistence of his earlier marriage with respondent.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Constitutionalism- Explained

-
Image
In simple words, Constitutionalism is a doctrine that a government’s authority is determined by a body of laws or constitution. More generally constitutionalism refers to efforts to prevent arbitrary government.   [1]    Constitutionalism is based on the idea of political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations. The central point of Constitutionalism is a “Limited Government”. Constitutionalism recognises the need for a government but at the same time also insists upon restraining its (government’s) power.  [2]   Epitome of Constitutionalism is Magna Carta issued in 1215 that limited the power of England’s King John. Constitutionalism places limits upon the arbitrary    powers of the three government power: legislative power (making new laws), executive power (implementing laws) and j...
Read more

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 319, Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence (Leading Case law: Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab )

-
Image
Facts: On June 24, 2004, Hardeep Singh was ploughing the land. The accused persons went there with deadly weapons and caused injuries to Hardeep Singh as well as other prosecution witnesses. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against many of the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 336 and 427 read with Sections 120B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as also for offences punishable under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused were arrested. Vijay Preet Singh (respondent No. 2) was one of them but the father of Vijay Singh interfered in investigation. Hence, he was discharged before framing of the charges. Moreover, Jagtar Singh (respondent No.3) whose name was not mentioned in the FIR, but as per witnesses also involved. The appeal is brought before the constitutional bench of Supreme Court because the division bench came onto differing opinion as to the additions of the respondent 2 and 3 to the case using sec...
Read more

Section 125 CrPC: Maintenance (Sanjay Damodar Kale Vs Kalyani Sanjay Kale and Anr)

-
Image
Facts: The couple got married on November 12, 1997 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremony. According to the applicant wife, since the inception of marital life the respondent husband treated her with extreme cruelty. She was dropped at her parental home at Satara in the month of January, 1999 by her husband. Despite repeated assurances, the respondent did not come to fetch her back to her marital home. Subsequently, in April, 2007 the respondent expressed his desire to obtain divorce from the applicant and they settled for mutual divorce. Despite the decree of dissolution of marriage, the respondent continued to visit the applicant at her apartment and had marital relations as well. But, from September 2012, the respondent husband stopped visiting the applicant's house. Applicant wife claimed he made no provision for her maintenance and livelihood as she has no source of income.   The Respondent appeared and resisted the claim the applicant wife had opened a beauty p...
Read more