-

Family
Law
1) Dharma & its sources 4 -

b 7
2) Dr
Durga Charan Hansdah
-

Suoajmani Stella
Kjar vs .

3) S 8
.

Nagalingam is Shivgami
4) Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande State Maharashtra 9
is of
5) 10 Il
Lily Thomas Union
of India
-

vs

6) Seema Is Ashwini Kumar 12

 Many : Ace to Manu ,
these are
four source
of Dharma .

① Vedas @ Smriti ③ Sada

charger ⑨ what is
agreeable to
( approved& customs
) one's coxicience
usage

YAJNYAVALKYA
"

: The Shruti Smriti & what

,
is
agreeable to one's convince is skunk from due

validation which are obtained as

foundation of Dharma ( land .

* Sources of DHARMA :

① Ancient ② Modern

/
•
Ss:L: ! ! :{I'm:L
Commentaries &

Customs &
usage
digest
.
. * * man

:
, I 37¥11
-

Judicial
decision

equity /
Caruana
good convince
# Ancient sources DHARMA :
of

/
Shruti : Shruti
"
is desired word Shou which to hear
by
"

the Sanskrit means .

>
Vedas told
by God & listened
by sages (Rishi Manis)
: .
-

t:÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷:÷÷÷÷÷÷: .
... .

Smriti literal meaning

memorized
-

→
Poetry style
Dharma Shashtra
- : Manu , Yajnavdka Boihaspati Nanda
, ,

Dharma Sutra - : Gautama ,

Baudhgana Afastomba Hanka Washita
, . , ,
Vishu .

& Nikandhas
commentary Digest
i
:

↳ God told + Remembered + customs

) usage
Nibandhas modified to it to to
were
bring harmony current
usage

v jj

MitaKahne All India School except ( ) Dayabhaga given by Jim uta vahana
"

→ WB :

↳ ( west
BYal addle
commentary on
Yajnavalkaya Smriti
chief commentary in west Bengal
↳ not
by vijaneshwasa specific Smriti
on a .
 Appealant Respondent
→ →
table # SURAJ MANI STELLA KUJUR vs DURGA C. HARAN HANS DAH
↳
Bigamy ,
Schedule Tribe
,
Customs & usages case

Important Questions in Case :

who Hindu ?
is
Lond
"
I t "
cand 2
What
I
•
is
Bigamy ?
cord
"
3 ✓

Court It law to be determined

says is
question of Accused subsistence 2nd
→
is 1st
a married
of marriage
.

already &
solemnization marriage is
solemnized as

Applicability Of law is
comprehensive valid (1st wife alive &
per
→
to HMA no the HMA less
very ace 1955
.

, ,
judicial separation (
All ceremonies done

India
divorce
happened)
person territory of
or

Affiliation All domiciled in the

aeesoeegiim.gg,
&
→ to

Muslims Christians Parsi Jew

by religion
→
Not on , ,
or .

Court did not

define the term Hindu rather took
Privy Council 's

ruling on
Bhagwan Koe . v F. c. Bose
for terminology .

Important terminologies in case :

Sec Scheduled tribes enlisted Aslide

(COI)
2
of HMA 1955 under 366125) of constitution
of India not
→
are
,

Act 1955 ( HMA)

governed by
Hindu
Marriage ,
.

"

Punishment
"

See 494 IPC

for Marrying again during lifetime of Husband wife unless divorce
of
→
or
,

or
judicial separation has been taken .

Article 366 (25) →

Definition of Scheduled Tribe [ Read with Article 342
of COI ]
of Co2

Article 342 Power President India

of ↳ I
→
of of to enlist or remove
any
tribe
from the list
of
Schedule Tribe via a
notification .

Article
"

Post facto
"

of ↳I
20 → Ex
effect of law is
stopped .

Meaning law can not be applied to incriminate

law
anyone for the crime committed
before the enactment
of .

See 29 (ii) Saving

of HMA 19553 Clause

Sec 29
Contentions :

Appellants '
tourist : →
Afpelant says ,
Both
Appelant & Respondent belonged to Schedule Tribe enlisted under A 366GB

of Constitution
of India .

→
Hence Hindu
Marriage Act won't be applied to resolve the case .

(Sec 2
of HMA , 1955 ) .

→
Therefore governed by personal laws of their tribe .

Accepts the fact of Solem rising 2nd Marriage allowed

→
& it is in the customers of their tribe
says
.

Ratio : → Court check the .

existence
of custom I found the claim to be true .

→ Due to see Hii) of HMA →

charges under Sec 494 were dropped

Appealant acquitted of charge of Bigamy

→
.

!
Additional
"
Info :

Though ADULTERY has

"

been
repealed as a

film:*, Leta itw.me:9?oasea.s

.
a
ground for Divorce
 nppekmt Respondent
→ g.
Case # S NAGA LINGAM VS SHIV GA MI :

Facts: →

Afpealant & Respondent married on

06/09/1970 .

→
nppelant used to ill beat-
the
Respondent ,
So she left her marital house & lived with her
parents .

2nd
Nagalingam ( Appendant)
"

Kasten
"
→
did in the meantime with
a
marriage
.

→
The
Respondent here came to know about this &
filed a case
against
her husband for crime
of BIGAMY

COURT VERDICT
Lower or Trial ceremonies not

Court Not Guilty of Sec 494 solemnized

,

High bust
Nagalingam .
Guilty of See 494

GUILTY
Supreme bust
, Appeal Dismissed

Contentions :

Appealant 's Appellant 's lower 2nd & Saftpadi

Counsel that
Marriage solemnized
"

: contented the not with all the ceremonies .

"

hence to 7 HMA not valid

was
missing ,
ace see
,
1955
marriage a
marriage .

Priest also witness the &

was
brough to same
foist told that
exchange of garlands
& ritual
of the

holy (time)
"
Tenali done
"

was .

Radio : Sc said the 3

important and
"
to
prove bigamy an Accused must be
already married once
,
Subsistence
of
1st

& 2nd solemnized properly

marriage marriage must be .

These to
according just facts , afdpetant can 't be
punished
But the court also
recognises
Sec FLA) of HMA ,
last
tamil Nadu amendment where
Saftpadi was made not

compulsory for marriage The ritual

solemnize the
"

of Tenali
"

was
enough to
marriage .
.

Therefore 2nd marriage is a valid

marriage .

Nagalingam weds Kasturi

Hence
ground for Bigamy Proved .

Appeal dismissed
Case
# BHAU RAO SHANKAR LO KHAN DE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Facts : →
Bhaurao married Indu Bai in 1956

→
He married Kamla Bai in 1962 .

Indu Bai
filed for Bigamy Bhanrao
→
a case
against
-

→
Lower court convicted Bhau race of Bigamy under Sec 494

High Court dismissed his

appeal
→ .

He
Supreme Court
→
in
appealed
.

Contention
-
:

Appealant 's counsel :

Says that the 2nd marriage was .
not a valid
marriage b' coz
Salptafadi was not
performed .

↳ Sect
of Hindu
Marriage Act 1955
,

" "

Respondent counsel :
Says that the Gandharva & faptalpadi not necessary
's
marriage was a
marriage was

Ratios Essential Ceremonies

for marriage
① Invocation of sacred
fire .

② Salptapadi ( even in
"
Gandharva Marriage)
③ If Saptafadi
"

customs then not

excuses
necessary
Proper
'

④ solemnization of all the ceremonies .

As &
Iafstafadi missing Respondent could not prove any custom which excuses
swiftabadi ,

Therefore Bhau race 's 2nd

marriage
is not a valid
marriage .

↳ Hence no
Bigamy
Appendant Acquired
>

>

Appeal boarded .
CASE # LILY THOMAS VS UNION OF INDIA
I

> See 5 (i ) HMA ,

1955 →

only Monogamy ,
no
polygamy
3 cases clubbed

→
Sushmita Ghosh v Union
of India >
Gyan Chand Ghosh ge Sushmita Ghosh
>

→
Sasha
Mudgal Union
of India
→ counsel → LILY THOMAS 2nd " \ converted to Islam
ate
v

Vinita as Sec 5 Ci)

of
→
Sunita alias Fatima v Union
of India gupta HMA prohibits
bigamy & sect
of HMA &
see 494 EPC punishment
of
Decision Salla & JUMA IT ULEMA HIND &
of Mudgal case earlier was
challenged review petition was
filled by Ors

under Sec 136 Constitution India

of of .

Decision in Sasha
Mudgal case earlier →
If any during the subsistence of
Hindu
his/her first marriage contests to another
religion (say Islam)

to
solemnize 2nd Marriage then the ,
2nd
Marriage will be heated void .

Review petition was

filled stating this violates Sec 20,21 25,26 ,
of constitution
of India .

Question before coast :

Islam &
person Islam &
① If permits bigamy &
polygamy a converts to marries
again , why is this
illegal ?
This violation Article
Right & Personal liberty
is
of 21 → to
freedom of Life
.

② reprehension (fear) of Islam breach to

Whether a
person regarding charges of bigamy after religious conversion to a
fundamental
right to life & liberty due to Supreme Court
judgement ?
③ the
"

decision
Whether law
formed of Sasha
Midget have retrospective effect
"

as a case

Contusion :

Lily Thomas : ①
Marriage is a sacred institution & can 't be dissolved
by religious conversion ,
conversion
only for 2nd Marriage
It is to dissolve 1st
a insincere excuse
massage
② Most
profound Argument Uniform civil code should be
implemented to absolve vast
majority
→

of socio -

legal issues .

4) Many Muslim
lady wrote to
High court to declare
polygamy unconstitutional in Muslim Personal Law

④ To
reframe Muslim Personal Law as in Tunisia where
Polygamy is dissolved & treated
.
as
disrespectful
to
liberty &
integrity of women who
face bigamy or
polygamy
iii) To have Uniform Civil Code so that
personal law violate fundamental Rights of citizens
any
no .
Appellant 's Counsel :
① Acc to Article 26 ( cot) provides freedom of conscience &
right to worship &
profess any religion .

Therefore conversion to Islam is

legal & so are the
legal sights of being Muslim worshipper ,
therefore
Bigamy must be allowed .

② Law declared Sasha not be allowed have retrospective effect meaning if any
in
Mudgal case must to ,

Islam & 2nd

person changed to solemnized marriage before the decision
of Sasha
Mudgal case ,
those
people
must be excused law Ex Post facto law not allowed
by must be
- -
. .

Ratio :
① Decision in Santa
Mudgal case →
valid

> does not violate Adi de 21 & 26 .

I ↳ &
Right to life Right to worship profess any religion
&
liberty
→ declared such method
of marrying fraudulent .

② Mr Ghosh did his bank details 2nd marriage 's child Hindu Birth
not
change name in
,
even name →
acedificak
father Hindu
So clear that Mr Ghosh does not Islam
name
it is .

lpnefess or
properly .

③ Retrospective effect of this law will these as this not

any
new law ,
rather
interpretation of an
existing law
Article 20 fi) prohibits only retrospective effect of new law .

Appeal Dismissed → No comment on Uniform Civil Code

If 1st
marriage substains
↳ 2nd
marriage after
conversion is void
CASE # SEEMA vs
ASH WANI KUMAR :
facts Case lpdition
: was a in
Haryana District

Sec 8 bust
of HMA 1955
,
→
Registration of Marriage regarding the issue
of registration of
Sec Conditions which
5
of HMA , 1955
for Hindu
Marriage marriage the issue
of
→
was the

Sec 7 HMA Ceremonies Hindu States Diff States diff ailing

of 1955 →
of Manage
.

Hindu here is
referred to
person worshipping any of these
religion Issue :
Marriage Registration necessary ?
What
& d
Jainism
d
Sikhism
d
Buddhism
is the
constitutionality of compulsion ?
Hinduism

Both
If pasty Hindu ,
they register under HMA , 1955

If either one not a Hindu ,

then
register under Special Marriage Act ,
1954 SMA →
Irrespective of religion
↳ Inter
religion marriages also

Oglio why registration necessary ? registered under

Special
① To
prevent child
marriages
& ensure minimum
age of marriages Marriage Act (
SMA ) ,
1959 .

② Prevention of marrying without consent

of pasty / pasties to
marriage .

③ Check
illegal bigamy / polygamy .

⑨ Enables to claim their to live matrimonial house maintenance etc

married women
right in
,
.

⑤ Enabling widows to claim their inherited &

privileges which
they entitled to
rights ,
other
benefits are
after
death her husband
of .

⑥ Deterring men
from dissenting women
after marriages
.

⑦ daughters / young girls to

person including foreigner
Deterring parents ) gausdian from selling any
a
,
under

the
goats of marriage .

gb
'
coz t.fi?FundefwroentliFsonedule7ofcotf
Ratio ① The Supreme Court started by saying ,
it had the
right to make decision .

Constitutionality )
② Supreme Court said , Registration of marriage was
necessary to reduce the abuse & several reasons

stated above

③ Supreme Court directed stales to directives within 3 months

the
give of registration of the
ruling via

an
official notification .

↳ Appoint to
registrars or
officials ease the task
of registration
④ If Central
govt enacts a comprehensive statute ,
the same shall be
placed before court
for scouting .