SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954

Facts: The plaintiff/appellant's marriage was solemnised on 27.09.2002 with Indua Devi at Maldah (West Bengal) under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 and a Marriage Certificate to this was issued by Special Marriage Officer, Maldah which is in possession of defendant/respondent. After their marriage both the parties started living together at village Lalban and was consummated. After few days of their marriage, the appellant came to know that respondent was earlier married to one Sri Ram Bilas, resident of village - Chakrafu Ekchari and out of said wedlock, she has a 13 years old son who was studying at Mundli Mission School at Mundli. The appellant further came to know that prior to her second marriage, the appellant had undergone operation for Vasectomy and as such she would not be able to conceive and give birth to the child. It is alleged that in order to claim paternal property of the appellant, the respondent had hatched a conspiracy and succeeded in solemnisation of second marriage with the appellant by playing fraud by concealing previous relationship. The defendant has denied all the allegations and disclosed that the appellant has remarried a lady Sanjay Kumar.

Held: Even if it is presumed that the first marriage was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff/appellant, the defendant/respondent cannot be absolved from the liability of seeking divorce from her 1st husband. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there is apparent violation of this provision and as such, we are of the opinion that the impugned Judgment is fit to be quashed and the marriage between the parties to suit may be declared null and void.

Facts: The marriage between the two parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites. It is the specific case of the appellant that the marriage was not consummated owing to frequent desertion of the respondent to her parents house. It is also the contention of the appellant that the respondent stayed with him only for 15 days after the marriage in the matrimonial home. While so, the appellant came to know that the respondent gave birth to a female child. The appellant disowned his paternity of the female child by stating that he is always ready to subject himself to any medical test to show that the female child was not born to him. According to the appellant, he is a devotee of the deity Ayyappa Swamy and used to go on pilgrimage to Sabarimala at Kerala after wearing Thulasi malai and by observing fasting. While so, when the appellant was observing fasting by wearing Thulasi Malai, the respondent, her parents and relatives came to the matrimonial home and threatened to remove the Thulasi Malai by stating that they belonged to Christianity and insisted on him to convert himself to Christianity. At this juncture, the appellant came to know that the respondent is a Christian by religion.

Held: Respondent and the minor child were subjected to medical examination which had clearly pointed out that it was the appellant who had fathered the minor child. In such circumstances, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, though there is no valid marriage between the appellant and the respondent in the eye of law, there was a semblance of marriage in the presence of elders and relatives, hence, the minor female child born to the respondent through the appellant has to be considered as a legitimate child. Appeal Dismissed.

Facts: The appellant had raised concern about young girls and boys getting married without informing their parents. According to him some of the parents are denied their right to information about the marriage of their sons and daughters. He stated that when parents bring up their children with love and care and take all possible steps for the welfare of child, giving custody, supervision, physical and psychological protection, health and safety, education etc. their relationship does not cease on children attaining majority age. Parental authority still subsists and they should have a right to know their choice of marriage.

Held: It's unfortunate that this Bill has lapsed and forgotten, while would be partners are being pressurized and victimized by unlawful assemblies called Khaps and Shariat Courts or Caste Elders or Religious bodies. The Government has a responsibility to prevent fraudulent or illegal or invalid marriages on one hand and to protect genuine lovers from the violence of parents and caste/religious heads. State's responsibility extends to provide safe circumstances to youth of the nation to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right of choosing life partner and to register their marriages, if legal, after giving due notice to interested parties to raise and verify their objections. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide point-wise information as sought by the appellant, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Facts: Respondent No. 1 company is a family run private company limited by shares. It was incorporated on November 28, 1947, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and its registered office is at Mehboob Studios, 100, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050. The founder of the company late Mr. Mehboob Khan was a legendry filmmaker of India. It is pertinent to mention here that during the period April 7, 2011 to November 23, 2011, respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were the directors of respondent No. 1 company and were in its control and management. However, the said directors were removed from the directorship of respondent No. 1 company in the extraordinary general meeting held on November 23, 2011 and they are no more directors of the company. Respondents Nos. 2 and 7 are the present directors of the company and respondent No. 8 is its managing director. under Shariat Law respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as the sons of late Ayub Mehboob Khan are entitled to 560 shares out of 1,132 shares held by late Ayub Mehboob Khan.

Held: I have come to the conclusion that the company for sufficient reasons has refused the transmission of shares in favour of the petitioner. I am further of the view that until the validity of the will is decided by the hon'ble High Court, it will not be appropriate and proper for the company to transmit the shares in favour of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the resolution passed by the company on December 13, 2008, to the extent it relates to the petitioner cannot be said non est, void, illegal and ineffective. It shall remain intact with respect to the petitioner's 278 shares-in-question. The company petition therefore, deserves to be disposed of at this stage, with the observation that the company shall be bound by the orders to be passed by the hon'ble High Court in Civil Suit No. 2855 of 2008 pending between the parties in respect of the shares-in-question claimed by the petitioner under Will under challenge in the suit.

Facts: The undisputed facts are that the couple's marriage is solemnised on 13.11.2005 according to the Christian rites and customs. The couple have a daughter, Miss. Krupa born on 30.10.2006. The husband is working as a police constable, and just prior to the wedding, he was working at Hospet, but after the marriage, he started working at Siruguppa. The wife is a government teacher, and even as of the date of the marriage, she was working in a Government School at Halekote Village of Siruguppa taluk. The couple are estranged, and have been living separately ever since the date of the petition by the husband for divorce on 20.11.2008. The husband is staying in a lodge, and the wife is residing in the quarters allotted to the husband. The husband's case is that he is subjected to cruelty by the wife. He reasonably apprehends that it would be harmful and injurious for him to live with respondent, and therefore, he is entitled for divorce. the wife continued the pregnancy after much persuasion. The child was born in the month of October 2006 after a cesarean procedure. The wife stayed with her parents for confinement, but she returned to the matrimonial home with the child after the customary period. The wife insisted that they refrain from any physical intimacy because she did not want to go through the difficulties and pain of childbearing once again. He was denied the comforts of marital life. The wife's case is that the husband is given to different vices, and in fact, he is acquainted with a certain third person even prior to the date of marriage. This third person is working in a beauty parlour in Bellary. She has two children, and she is deserted by her husband. The husband introduced this third person as his good friend at the time of the wedding, and she did not suspect any intimacy between them. However, she has come to know that they are into a physical relationship. They clandestinely exchange SMSs over mobile (the mobile phone, a SIM and the transcription of the messages exchanged between them are marked as Exhibits). This third person's second child is born to the husband.

Held: whether a spouse is subjected to cruelty will have to be examined in the facts and circumstances of each case, and there can't be any strict definition for the same. Further, it is settled that if it is established that a feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration is caused in one spouse by the conduct of the other for a long time, mental cruelty can be reasonably inferred. The petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriages Act, is dismissed. The marriage solemnised on 13.11.2005 between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife is dissolved on the ground of Cruelty by the wife-respondent.

Facts: The parties were married according to Special Marriage Act on 05.01.1998 registered before the Marriage Registrar, Chinsurah, Hooghly. The respondent/wife prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The case of the respondent/wife is that she is a Hindu by religion, while the appellant/husband is a Muslim male and they got acquainted through their common friend and gradually became affectionate to each other. It was the further case of the respondent/wife that since 1998, she was residing in her father's house while the appellant/ husband was living in his house and the appellant/husband had never shown any interest to bring her to his house. It was also contended that although the appellant/husband earned Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only per month but he never sent any money for her maintenance. It was also contended that the appellant/husband married her by suppressing material facts and he even threatened her personally as well as through his men. It was further contended that both the parties were living separately for more than fourteen (14) years and the marital tie has irretrievably broken down and, therefore, a decree of divorce may be passed in her favour.

Held: We are of the view, that a decree for divorce for dissolution of the marriage was thus not a legal recourse open for the respondent/wife and there was no valid ground for the same at present.