Polyandry back in spotlight after brothers marry woman in Himachal: What law says
Is polyandry legally recognised? As far as the law is concerned, polyandry is not legally recognised in India. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — which governs marriages among Hindus — a valid marriage must be monogamous.Section 5 of the Act stipulates that "neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage." This makes bigamy or polyandry (having multiple husbands) legally invalid.In fact, bigamy is punishable under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse without legal divorce.Even the Special Marriage Act, a person cannot have more than one living spouse at the time of marriage.The Act states that at the time of the marriage, neither party has a spouse living, which means that if either person is already married to someone who is still alive, the new marriage is void under the Act.However, it is important to note that the Hindu Marriage Act does not apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe, unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.Under the Constitution, "Scheduled Tribes" refers to such tribes or tribal communities, or parts or groups within them, as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.As far as cases like the present one are concerned, Indian personal law does allow for customary practices to be taken into account, especially in tribal communities.Section 13 of the Evidence Act provides for facts which are relevant when right or custom is in question, which basically allows parties to present evidence to establish customs, when those customs are legally in issue.Through judicial interpretation its also been evolved by courts that customs have to pass certain tests, including whether they are ancient, certain, reasonable, not opposed to public policy, morality, etc.Through judicial interpretation, it has also been established by the courts that customs must pass certain tests — including whether they are ancient, certain, reasonable, and not opposed to public policy or morality.Speaking to India Today TV, Advocate Rajat Nair said that under the law, these marriages would be void but someone has to challenge it. If there is consensus and immediate family members have no problem and no one approaches the court, occasion to seek this marriage as void will not arise.advertisementHe said that under law, marriage would be recognised only with one person, and person can't be married to two persons at same time.He agreed that these cases may fall under the grey area as these practices persist as customary tradition in certain areas and amongst some tribal communities, adding that courts have repeatedly emphasised that monogamy is the only valid form of marriage under the actOn the other hand, Advocate Ibad Mushtaq said that as far as practices of Scheduled Tribes are concerned, the same are not governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, no disability attaches to the customary practices of STs. The marriage would therefore be valid.Advocate Tarini Nayak said that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does carve out certain exceptions in favour of certain customary practices, thereby allowing for the possibility of multiple marriages if sanctioned by custom.Furthermore, a potential loophole exists within Section 5 of the Act, which stipulates that at the time of the solemnization of marriage, neither party should have a spouse living.advertisementThis wording arguably implies that if a person marries two persons simultaneously—without either party being or having a 'spouse' in a legal sense at that precise moment—such a union may technically fall outside the ambit of a void marriage, thus creating an interpretative gap in the statutory scheme.- Ends
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
OMC Mining Case: Telangana HC junks AP IAS officer Srilakshmi's criminal revision plea
Hyderabad: Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana high court on Friday dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by senior Andhra Pradesh IAS officer Y Srilakshmi, who is facing allegations of facilitating the illegal mining scam involving mining baron Gali Janardhan Reddy and his company, Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC). CBI, which probed the scam, named Srilakshmi as accused No. 6 in the case. The investigation led to the conviction of Janardhan Reddy and his associates, including then AP mines and geology director VD Rajagopal. However, the trial court acquitted former mines minister P Sabitha Indra Reddy and then industries secretary Kripanandam. Justice Lakshman, in his order, held that the questions relating to mining leases, captive mining, and other factual matters must be examined during trial. He observed that the truthfulness of such contentions could not be adjudicated by the high court in a criminal revision petition, and accordingly, dismissed Srilakshmi's plea. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad In her plea, Srilakshmi contended that she merely implemented policy decisions taken by the then AP govgt, which had already favoured OMC. She assumed charge as secretary of industries and mines in May 2006, succeeding Kripanandam, and claimed she had not initiated any new action of her own. Her counsel further argued that the term 'captive mining' was not used at the time due to a Union govt directive prohibiting it and therefore she could not be faulted on that count. It was also submitted that section 27 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 provided her legal protection, as it prohibits prosecution for acts done in good faith under the Act. However, the CBI argued that mining leases were granted, and GOs were issued only after her appointment. It accused her of suppressing material facts from the Centre while obtaining permission for the lease in favour of OMC. The agency alleged she took expedited steps to eliminate rival claimants to benefit OMC. The chargesheet named her as a co-conspirator along with Janardhan Reddy, OMC managing director Srinivas Reddy, and Rajagopal. Notably, the high court had earlier discharged Srilakshmi from the case. However, following a challenge by the CBI, the Supreme Court set aside that order, noting that the high court had not heard the agency's arguments. The apex court remanded the matter, directing the high court to hear both parties and dispose of the matter within three months.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
J&K an exception, no delimitation exercise prior to 2026 Census: SC
NEW DELHI: Acknowledging an exception carved out for Jammu and Kashmir , the Supreme Court on Friday said delimitation exercises for other states cannot be conducted prior to publication of data of first census after 2026 as that would be against the mandate of Article 170(3) of the Constitution. "The delimitation process is, by design, a legislative and executive function. If the SC were to compel carrying out of delimitation exercise (in a particular state) through a judicial fiat, it would likely be construed as an interference in the policy-making prerogative of the Executive," said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Kant said, "The Constitutional edifice carefully balances institutional roles, and any disruption of that equilibrium would undermine both the legitimacy and functional integrity of the democratic process." The bench said the constitutional mandate under Article 170(3) bars any delimitation exercise concerning states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana or any other state. It dismissed a writ petition challenging the Centre's decision to conduct delimitation only for J&K and not for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, saying the constitutional mandate - delimitation exercise based on first census after 2026 - does not apply to UTs. The petitioner's counsel Rao Ranjit said that though J&K Reorganisation Act was passed in 2019, the delimitation exercise was carried out under the 2020 notification, but even though the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act was passed in 2014, the delimitation exercise had not been carried out for these two states even after a decade. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Blood cancer is taking our curious baby away from us! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo Solicitor general Tushar Mehta along with ASG K M Nataraj for the Centre said as per the mandate of Articles 80 and 170 of the Constitution, no readjustment of seats or divisions of states into territorial constituencies can be undertaken until the relevant data from first census conducted after 2026 is published. For the Election Commission, senior advocate Maninder Singh said the EC has no jurisdiction to opine on the validity of delimitation exercise as its role is only to facilitate implementation of the process. The SC accepted the Centre's stand and said the AP Reorganisation Act is subject to the constitutional provisions, as expressly provided in the Act itself. If delimitation exercise is allowed to be carried out in some states, then it would open a flood gate of similar demands from the other states, he said. The bench said the petitioner cannot seek to draw delimitation parity between states of AP and Telangana with that of the Union Territory of J&K, to which Article 170(3) has no application. Though it acknowledged legitimate expectations of people of the two states for delimitation exercise, it ruled that such expectations cannot override constitutional mandate.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Governor C V Ananda Bose returns Bengal rape bill after Centre flags concerns
West Bengal governor C V Ananda Bose (Pic credit: ANI) KOLKATA: West Bengal governor C V Ananda Bose has returned the Aparajita bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, citing serious objections raised by the Centre regarding proposed changes to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), according to a high-ranking Raj Bhavan source. The Centre found that the Aparajita Women and Child (West Bengal Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill, passed in Sept 2024, contains changes in penal provisions for rape under multiple BNS sections, proposing "excessively harsh and disproportionate" punishments, sources said. A major point of contention is an amendment to BNS section 64. The state bill increases the punishment for rape from the current minimum of 10 years to either imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life or capital punishment. The ministry of home affairs (MHA) reportedly deemed this as unduly harsh and inconsistent with principles of proportionality. Another change that MHA has objected to involves the removal of BNS section 65, which prescribes stricter penalties for sexual assault of minors. According to sources, Union govt believe scrapping this clause weakens protections for the vulnerable groups and risks diluting the intent behind age-based classifications in rape laws. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brain tumor has left my son feeling miserable; please help! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo However, the clause that the Centre found most problematic is the one under section 66, making the death penalty mandatory in rape cases where the victim either dies or is left in a vegetative state. The MHA raised constitutional concerns, arguing that removing judicial discretion in sentencing violated established legal norms and Supreme Court rulings, sources said. State govt, however, said it had received no official communication either from the Centre nor the governor's office about these observations. Earlier, bills similar to Aparajita, like Andhra Pradesh Disha Bill, 2019, and Maharashtra Shakti Bill, 2020 - which had mandatory death penalty for all rape and gang-rape cases - were passed unanimously by state legislatures, but did not get President's assent. Trinamool Congress indicated the party would make it a political issue. TMC spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said: "The returning of the Aparajita bill is unfortunate, deplorable and condemnable... This has proved that BJP is unwilling to impose maximum punishment in these cases, as their members are implicated in molestations and rapes."
