Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/453/2012 of SMT. KALAWATI DEVI Vs THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY P AND ORS on 31 December 2012
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 453 of 2012 (S/B) Smt. Kalawati Devi …..….Petitioner Versus The General Manager (P) Northern Railway and others ….….. Respondents Mr. P.S. Bohara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate holding brief
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 453 of 2012 (S/B)
Smt. Kalawati Devi
…..….Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager (P) Northern Railway and others ….….. Respondents Mr. P.S. Bohara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate holding brief of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J.Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)
There is no acceptable evidence that the petitioner got married to the deceased Government employee before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force. However, petitioner is accepting the fact that she got married subsequent to the original marriage of the deceased Government employee, but is contending that her marriage with the deceased Government employee had taken place before coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into effect, there was no restriction of marrying more than once by Hindu male. Section 4 was inserted in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The same is as follows:
“4. Overriding effect of Act.—Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,- expressly provided in this Act,- (a) any text rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.”
2. Despite knowledge of the fact that more than one marriage has taken place in respect of some of the Hindu males, while enacting the saving clause in Section 29 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Legislature did not feel it necessary to provide for saving of those marriages, which had taken place before coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. A look at Sub Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, will make it abundantly clear that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 did not permit a Hindu to have more than one wife living at a time after coming into force of the said Act and, accordingly, by the provisions contained therein, authorized the wife to ask for divorce, if she became a wife prior to coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the ground for the divorce is that subsequent to her marriage, her husband had married once again. Sub Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, therefore, abundantly makes it clear that there is no scope of recognition of a second married wife of a Hindu male after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 31.12.2012 31.12.2012
Rathour