Rights of Second Wife – With reference to Bigamous Marriage in India

Written by: Varun Shivhare, II Year, National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal

Second marriage, during the subsistence of the first marriage, is illegal in India and the relationship arising from the same does not have any validity. Even though the law is very clear on this point, ‘second marriage’ is a common practice in Indian society. As a result of the aforementioned contrast between the law and social practice, second wives in India have little protection under the law.

With the commencement of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), one of the condition provided for a valid for a valid marriage was that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Under the old law, there was a bar against a woman marrying a second husband while her first husband is alive unless custom permitted her. There was no such bar against men, till some States passed laws for prevention of bigamous marriages, and introduce the principle of monogamy among Hindus. After 1955, with the help of the aforementioned provision and Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, second marriages came be declared null and void ab initio. In this behalf, under the Hindu Marriage Act it is necessary is a marriage according to the customs and rites, and secondly, that the spouse of the first marriage was a legally wedded spouse and the second marriage was subsisting on the date of the second marriage.

The social stigma attached with being a second wife, the absence of any legal status to the relationship, and the enormous pain of being cheated into the marriage are undoubtedly extremely depressing for a woman. Even though there is no recognition given to a second wife, due to the judicial interpretation of existing law as discussed above, she may have some chances of getting maintenance. In the absence of any clear provisions under the law, her chances of claiming her rights are largely dependent on the discretion of the judges.

Even under the criminal law, it is extremely to prove bigamy, as the marriage has to be validly performed to prove the offence of bigamy. Usually these loop holes in the law are exploited by men to defend themselves in such cases.

Historical Prospective
Though monogamy is the rule from Vedic times, polygamy has, as an exception, existed side by side. But, the wife who was wedded first was alone the wife in the fullest sense. One text of Manu seems to indicate that there was a time when a second marriage was allowed to a man after the death of his former wife. Another set of text justifies a husband taking another wife. It was only when a wife was barren, diseased or vicious that she could be superseded and a second marriage was valid; as also when she consented.

As a norm, the first wife had precedence over the others and her first-born son over his half brothers. It is probable that originally, the subsequent wives were considered as merely a superior class of concubines. Later, in the courts of British India. it was a settled law that a Hindu male could without any restriction marry again while his previous marriage subsisted (second marriage) without his wife’s consent and justification.

Custom, however, did prevent the second marriage without the consent of the first wife and without making provision for her. It was however held in Raghveer Kumar v Shanmukha Vadivar, that a custom prevalent amongst Nadars in Udumalapeta Taluk preventing a second marriage, even if established could not have the force of law.

Proof of Second Marriage
The supreme court has laid down that proof of solemnization of second marriage in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to parties is absolutely essential and a must for conviction for bigamy and that mere admission on the part of the accused that he had contacted second marriage was not enough and that such admission is not evidence for the purpose of proving marriage in an adultery or bigamy case. in customary marriage, where custom is not pleaded, living together as husband and wife would not enough. But where in the case it was proved that dola was brought, bhanwar ( saptapadi ) and kanyadan had taken place, the full vivah was read out and the marriage was performed by a purohit, the marriage must be held to have been duly solemnized.

In a Hindu marriage, where a Hindu marriage is performed according to religious rites, performance of homa and saptapadi are essential and where they are not proved to have been parformed it cannot be called a solemnised marriage under the section. To prosecution person under Section 494 I.P.C., there is nothing in the act forbidding a prosecution for offence punishable under Section 494 of penal code not preceded by declaration obtained under provisions of the act that second marriage is void. Second marriage must be legally valid marriage so as to come within mischief of Section 494. The word ‘ solemnize ‘ means in connection with a marriage, ‘ to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form’, according to shorter oxford dictionary. It follows, therefore, that unless the marriage is ‘ celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form ‘, it cannot be said to be solemnized ‘. it is therefore, essential, for the purpose of Section 17 of the act, that the marriage to which sec 494, I.P.C applies on account of the provisions of the act, should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married, will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established custom.

Husband or Wife Must be Alive
The section will not apply if the husband or wife of the first marriage is dead or if the first marriage she has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. The limit of one year imposed by Section 15 will not apply to marriage under the section, as Section 15 is confined only to the parties to that marriage. The present section will not also apply if the former marriage is void or declared void by a decree of nullity. The section declare the subsequent marriage void. It will not, therefore, affect the validity of the former marriage. Notice a that sec 494 of the Indian Penal Code exempts from punishment a second marriage bona fide contracted after seven years absence of the husband or the wife, who has not been heard of by those likely to hear from him or her, during the period. Offences under sec 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code are non-cognizable.

Who Can Complain
Only the person aggrieved can complain in case of bigamy. if it is the wife who is aggrieved, then her father can complain as he is the lineal ascendant of the wife.

Grant of Injunction
A petition restraining the husband/wife from marrying second time in not maintainable. But a suit for perpetual injunction by the wife restarting her Hindu husband from contracting second marriage would lie jurisdiction of civil court to entertain such suit is not excluded by Hindu marriage act. A petition for declaration that the second marriage is void can be filed by only parties to the marriage and not by first wife.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
With the commencement of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), one of the condition provided for a valid for a valid marriage was that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Under the old law, there was a bar against a woman marrying a second husband while her first husband is alive unless custom permitted her. There was no such bar against men, till some States passed laws for prevention of bigamous marriages, and introduce the principle of monogamy among Hindus. After 1955, with the help of the aforementioned provision and Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, second marriages came be declared null and void ab initio. In this behalf, under the Hindu Marriage Act it is necessary is a marriage according to the customs and rites, and secondly, that the spouse of the first marriage was a legally wedded spouse and the second marriage was subsisting on the date of the second marriage. In case of a spouse unheard of for more than 7 years, a presumption can be drawn under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) that the spouse is dead. In such an event, the other spouse can marry a second time on the ground that the former marriage is dissolve due to the civil death of his/her spouse. This was held in Lalchand Narwali v. Mahant Ram Rupgir. Also it is important to note that as a second marriage is void even if it is not declared as void, a third party interested in the marriage (the first wife) can also get the second the second marriage declared as null and void.

Ishwar Singh v. Smt Hukum Kaur – AIR 1965 All. 465
Facts:
The opposite party Smt. Hukum Kaur filed an application under section 488 CrPC against the applicant on the allegation that the applicant was her husband, that he was neglecting her and that she was entitled to get her monthly allowance from him for maintenance. The applicant denied to have married the opposite party. Party led evidence and the learned magistrate held that the marriage of the applicant with the opposite party has been established, that the applicant with the opposite party and, therefore, he is liable to pay her a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15 per month. On revision the learned session judge has referred the case with a recommendation at the order passed by the magistrate be set aside, because, admittedly the opposite parties previous husband Brahma Pal was alive and therefore there could be no legal marriage between the opposite party and the applicant entitling the opposite party to receive any maintenance.

Held:
In this case it was also observed, “so long as such a divorce has not be obtained, the previous marriage subsists and, therefore, the second marriage cannot be contracted by the Hindu so long his spouse is living”. Section 5 of the HMA provides that the marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindu’s , if neither party has the spouse living at the time of the marriage. In the instant case the previous husband of the opposite party is still alive and therefore a second marriage with the applicant even it is held to have taken effect was wholly illegal and can not given any right to get a maintenance from the applicant.

Trailokya Mohan v State of Assam – AIR 1968, Assam 22
Facts:
Petitioner having already a wife living name Subarna Bala Nath , married a second time one Sefali Debi and thus committed the offence of bigamy punishable under the IPC read with the provisions of the HMA 1955.

Held:
In this case the court further observed, under the provision of sec 5 (1) HMA , one of the condition of a valid Hindu marriage is that it should be solemnized between two Hindus , neither party having a spouse living at that time. Where the accused himself in his statement under sec 342 CrPC had admitted that he did marry A during the life time of Bill of Lading , whom he married first. And that admission was corroborated by oral evidence of witnesses who in their cross-examination did not take a stand that the second marriage was invalid, there is a presumption of a valid marriage and when a strong satisfactory and conclusive evidence to rebut the presumption was totally lacking in the case, it must be held at a valid second marriage was solemnized and that was the basis of the admission made by the accused and it could be relied upon.

Criminal Law
Under criminal law, the first wife aggrieved by a second marriage can file a complaint for bigamy. Under section 494, IPC, “whoever, having a husband or wife living, contracts a marriage during the life of the former husband or wife, is void…” and therefore the same is also an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years or fine or both. This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by the court of competent jurisdiction. Under section 495, IPC, bigamy committed by concealing the fact of the first marriage is punishable with 10 years imprisonment or fine or both. A complaint can also be filed for cheating under section 415, IPC. Cheating is defined under section 415, IPC, as fraudulently or dishonesty inducing the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything, which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Such an act or omission should be proved to cause or likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Therefore, if the fact of the subsistence of the first marriage is kept a secret, apart from a complaint under bigamy provision, a complaint can also be filed for those offences of cheating. Often it is difficult to prove the fact of the second marriage. A man faced with the criminal complaint for bigamy would often argued that his relationship with the second woman was not one of marriage as the necessary as the necessary formalities of a valid marriage as required by law were not performed.

Naurang Singh v. Sapla Devi – AIR 1968 All. 1958.
Facts:
Smt. Sapla Devi made an application under Section 488, CrPC, for grant of maintenance on the ground that she was married to Naurang Singh, petitioner about two years ago and thereafter one year of the marriage the relation between them became strained and Naurang singh also married a second wife, namely Kalpa Devi, that about eight months ago he, dispossessed of her ornaments and cloths and turned her out of the house, and there after she started living with her father. It was said that during this period, Naurang Singh completely neglected to maintenance at Rs. 30 per mensem from her husband.
Issue:
Under Section 488, CrPC is she entitled to maintenance even if she has lived with a man as his wife for 12 years and borne him a child.
Held:
R. CHANDRA, J.:
The learned magistrate found that Smt. Sapla Devi was the wedded wife of Naurang Singh, so he granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40 per mensem. Under Section 488, CrPC is she entitled to maintenance even if she has lived with a man as his wife for 12 years and borne him a child. Only legally married woman are entitled to maintenance under section 488, CrPC. It was observed, “Under section 5 and 11 of HMA, 1955, a second marriage with a previous married wife living is null and void”.

Banshidhar v Chhabi Chatterjee – AIR 1967 Patna 277
Facts:
CrPC (1898) sec 488 – Hindu woman claiming to have been married in 1962 to petitioner – Petition allegation that she was not his wife and that he was already married in 1952 – on evidence.
Held:
Woman to be legally married to petitioner – maintainability of claim under sec 488 – if petitioner on the date of marriage with the claimant woman had already a legally wedded wife, his marriage with the claimant – woman will be void under sec 11 of the HMA. A claim under sec 488 by a woman can be made only if she is the legally wedded wife of the person from whom she claim maintenance – such claim has nothing to do with the personal law on maintenance has been changed by the Hindu adoption and maintenance act 1956, which does not contain any provision entitling a woman to claim maintenance from a person with whom she entered into a void marriage – as such, the claimant woman will not be entitled to maintenance under sec 488.

Evident Act
Under Section 114 of the Evident Act the Court shall presume the existence of probable facts, having regard to human conduct and the common course of the events and common sense being used as the judicial tool. In sumitra Devi v. Bhinkan Chaudhary, it was held that the fact that the couples were living as husband and wife for decades was relevant in proving factum of their marriage. Again in Rangnath Parmeshwar v. Pandirao Mali, it was held that if H and W were living as Husband and Wife, then even in the absence of proof to that effect, a rebuttal presumption would arise that the marriage between them was valid.

Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Choudhary – (1885) 1 SCC 637.
Facts:
Sumitra Devi filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself as also a minor daughter alleging that she had been married to the Bhikan sometime in 1971 and out of the wedlock the child had been born. She further alleged that the fact that the respondent was already married and his spouse was living was not known. After the discovery of the previous marriage of the respondent the relationship between the parties gradually became strained and ultimately the respondent started totally neglecting the appellant and refused to maintain her. She had, therefore, no option left but to ask for maintenance for herself as also for the child.
Issue:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 7 – There can be a marriage acceptable in law according to customs which do not insist on performance of rites as saptapadi and marriages of this type give rise to legal relationship which law accepts.

Held:
RANGANATH MISRA, J:
The Additional Sessions Court and the High Court has adopted a technical approach while considering the question of marriage. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 7 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 – Parties had lived together about a decade public records including voters’ lists described them as husband and wife and competent witnesses of the village of the wife as also the husband had supported the factum of marriage witnesses have also spoken about the reputation of the appellant being known in the locality as the wife of the respondent.

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
A wife can claim maintenance from her husband irrespective of her religion under Section 125, CrPC. To prove the factum of marriage between the husband and the wife, we must rely on whether the husband has treated the woman as his wife in the society.Accordingly, the Voter’s Identity Card, wherein she has been referred to as his wife, or the joint bank account, or even the police complaint wherein he has stated that she is his wife can be used to prove her status as her wife. In Samudurai v. Rajlakshmi , it was held that when the wife comes to the court claiming maintenance, the husband should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong, alleging that there is a first marriage subsisting and thereby, the marriage between him and the wife claiming maintenance is a nullity. In Mallika and Anr v. P Kulandi , the Madras High Court held that is sufficient if evidence is available to the effect that the parties lived together for considerable time. In this case, the court held that it was established that the petitioner had been living with the respondent for a considerable period and continuously, so as to give way for the child to be born- this status of the petitioner is sufficient to get maintenance for herself as well as for the child. Where the husband misrepresented that the first wife was dead, the second wife would be entitled to maintenance and the child from the maintenance and the child from the second marriage would be legitimate child.

Hindu Personal Law
Bigamy is defined as an offence not only under the criminal law but also under HMA, Section 17, HMA says that any marriage between Hindus is void if on the date of such marriage, either party had a husband or wife living. The same is punishable under Section 494 and 495, IPC.

Another option available to the second wife is to get the marriage annulled under Section 11 read with Section 5(1) of HMA. Section 5, HMA provides for the conditions for the valid marriage, on being that neither party should have spouse living at the time of the marriage. Accordingly, a marriage contracted while either party has a spouse living, can be annulled under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The provisions for divorce under Section 13, HMA also provide for the remedy available to the second wife. Section 13 (2) (i) of HMA says that in cases of marriages before commencement of this Act, a second wife can seek divorce on the ground that her husband’s first wife was alive at the time of the solemnization of the second marriage.

Even though the law for the interim maintenance under Section 24, HMA does not categorically provide for maintenance for second wife, the Section has been given a very wide interpretation by the courts to bring the cases of second wives within its ambit. The second can also claim interim maintenance under the interpretation given to Section 24, HMA. In Laxmibai v. Ayodhya Prasad, it was held that ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ used in Section 24, HMA are not to be given strict literal meaning as to convey only legally married wife and husband. The expression wife and husband is in the context of the section and scheme of the Act should mean a person claiming to be a wife or a husband.

Similarly, under section 25, HMA the provisions for permanent alimony has also been interpreted widely by the courts to protect the rights of the second wives. After the declaration of the nullity of the marriage, the second wife could claim maintenance under section 25, HMA. It was held in Rajesh Bai v. Shantabai, that a woman whose marriage is void because of the existence of another wife is entitled to maintenance under this Section. The second wife can claim interim maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). In Kulwant Kaur alias Preeti v. Prem Nath, it was also said ‘no sane lady would surrender herself unless she treats her male companian as her husband- whether the marriage is proved or not that is the point to be determined by the trial Court itself- but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner cohabited with the respondent, interim maintenance under Section 20, HAMA is allowed to her’.

Under Hindu Women’s Rights to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946, a Hindu married woman was entitled to maintenance if her husband contracted another marriage provided this happened before the commencement of that Act. However, Section 18, HAMA provides that a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her husband on the basis of the aforementioned grounds amongst several others irrespective of the time when he contracted the other marriage (before or after 1956). Accordingly, a wife can claim maintenance from her husband even after she abandoned him when she comes to know that her husband has another wife living.

The phrase ‘any other wife living has been interpreted variously by the different High Courts. In Satyanarayana v. Sseetheramama, the A.P. High Court held that ‘wife living’ meant existing or alive and not necessarily living with the husband. However, a subsequent decision of the Madras High Court on the other hand in Annamalai Mudaliar v Perunayee Ammal, said that ‘wife living’ necessarily meant living with the husband. The Bombay High Court dissented from the decision of the Madras High Court, in Mani Bai v. Mukundrao, holding that under Section 18 of HAMA, the second wife can also claim a separate residence and maintenance under this Act.

Conclusion
The social stigma attached with being a second wife, the absence of any legal status to the relationship, and the enormous pain of being cheated into the marriage are undoubtedly extremely depressing for a woman. Even though there is no recognition given to a second wife, due to the judicial interpretation of existing law as discussed above, she may have some chances of getting maintenance. In the absence of any clear provisions under the law, her chances of claiming her rights are largely dependent on the discretion of the judges.

Even under the criminal law, it is extremely to prove bigamy, as the marriage has to be validly performed to prove the offence of bigamy. Usually these loop holes in the law are exploited by men to defend themselves in such cases.

Given this background of contrasting legal precedents, lawmakers should make clear provisions to protect the rights of those women who have been duped into ‘second marriages’ so as to bring them some respite.

Madras High Court orders family pension to 2nd wife : Citing SC judgment

Coming to the rescue of the second wife of a deceased doctor, the Madras High Court has directed the Director of Local Fund Audits to sanction family pension with effect from the date of her husband’s death.

C Sarojini Devi had challenged the order of the Director of Local fund Audits, Chennai, refusing to grant family pension on the ground that the marriage between the petitioner and doctor, a deceased government employee, was not valid and she cannot be considered to be the legal representative.

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, Justice Anand Venkatesh allowed her petition and said “… this court has to necessarily lean towards the presumption of marriage rather than branding the petitioner as a concubine.”

“This will be the most appropriate way to deal with the facts of the present case, if justice has to be done to the petitioner,” the judge said, quashing the order.

The doctor, A Chinnasamy married Sarojini Devi in 1975 during the subsistence of his first marriage and had three children through her.

After the first wife died in 1997, he nominated the petitioner on May 11, 1999 to receive the family pension after his death.

It was submitted that the petitioner lived with Chinnasamy for nearly 12 years even after the death of the first wife.

The special government pleader said the petitioner cannot be considered to be the deceased government employee’s legal heir.

Citing an apex court judgment, the judge said the supreme court has held that “law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have co-habitated continuously for a long time.”

It was very easy to brand the petitioner as a concubine and deprive her of her livelihood. However, the fact remains that she lived with the deceased from 1975 upto his death in 2009, Justice Venkatesh said.

This means that the petitioner lived with him for nearly 34 years, the judge said, adding she also gave birth to three children.

If the petitioner had made this claim when the first wife was alive, then obviously she will not be entitled for the pension since her relationship is not recognized by law, the court said.

After the first wife died, the petitioner lived with Chinnasamy till his death.

“During this period, it can always be construed that the petitioner and the deceased Dr A Chinnasamy were living as husband and wife and their long co-habitation itself raises that presumption of marriage.”

Besides Chinnasamy had also nominated the petitioner to receive the family pension, the court said.

Quashing the order, the judge directed officials to sanction family pension with effect from the date of Chinnasamy’s death on January 20,2009.

Officials should disburse the pension arrears within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the judge said, adding the petitioner shall be continued to be paid the family pension till her lifetime.

SC agrees to hear pleas against land acquisition process for bullet train project.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a batch of pleas filed by farmers against the Gujarat High Court verdict which had dismissed their petitions challenging the process of land acquisition for the ambitious Ahmedabad-Mumbai bullet train project.

The bullet train project was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe in September 2017.

The train will run at a speed of 320-350 kmph, and will have 12 stations across its 508-km stretch from Ahmedabad to Mumbai.

A bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose issued notices to the Centre, Gujarat government and others on a batch of appeals challenging September 19 last year verdict of the high court.

As an interim relief, the plea has sought to restrain the Gujarat government from proceeding ahead with the process of land acquisition for the purpose of the bullet train project.

“Issue notice on the SLPs (special leave petitions) as well as on the application for stay, returnable on March 20, 2020,” the bench said.

“Notice to be served on the standing counsel for the state of Gujarat. Reply may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter,” the apex court said in its order.

In its verdict, the high court had upheld the validity of the Land Acquisition Act amended by the Gujarat government in 2016 and subsequently approved by the president.

The high court had turned down the farmers’ claim that the Gujarat government did not have powers to issue a notification for land acquisition, since the project was divided between the two states — Gujarat and Maharashtra.

It had said that issuance of a notification declaring the commencement of land acquisition without undertaking social impact assessment is also valid.

In one of the appeals filed in the apex court, the petitioner said that the high court had upheld the validity of the 2016 state amendment brought by the Gujarat government into The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

It said acquisition of land “has to be done for the purpose of Mumbai-Ahmedabad high speed rail project which is being executed and implemented by the National High Speed Railway Corporation Ltd (NHSRCL), a special purpose vehicle incorporated under the Companies Act 2013” and as per the provision of the 2013 Act, the Centre is the ‘appropriate government’ for this.

It said that the process of land acquisition could only be triggered on the request made by NHSRCL and, although there is a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the Gujarat government and NHSRCL, there is no request or requisition by the corporation which has been placed on record.

“As such the central government being the appropriate government, except that a document is issued post-facto, there cannot be any request or requisition by NHSRCL requisitioning the land to government of Gujarat, therefore, the initiation of proceedings for the acquisition of land for the bullet train project at the very outset is void,” the plea said.

It alleged that proceedings for land acquisition has been “illegally initiated” by the state government in contravention of the provisions of 2013 Act and it would “deprive the farmers of their property and only source of livelihood, in the absence of valid law, which is unjust, unfair and arbitrary.”

“They said illegal action would create an irreversible situation, causing not only grave injustice but also irreparable injury to them,” the plea said.

Before the high court, the farmers had claimed that the process of land acquisition could not be started before revising the prices of their land, as mandated under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

They had claimed that compensation was being offered to them on the market rates decided way back in 2011.

The high court, in its verdict, had said the issue of higher compensation was still “open” and farmers could approach the authorities concerned to seek more money against their land.

15-year-old girl was allegedly strangled to death in Pune.

A 15-year-old girl was allegedly strangled to death in Pune’s Pimpri Chinchwad area and the police are on the lookout for the victim’s stepfather who is suspected to have committed the crime, police said on Friday.

The victim’s body was discovered by her sister at their home in Dapodi in Pimpri Chinchwad on Thursday evening.

According to the complaint registered by the victim ‘s mother, the alleged accused had a heated argument with her on Thursday morning.

The accused allegedly threatened his wife with dire consequences to which she cautioned him to stay away from her daughters, the complaint stated.

“In the evening, the deceased’s sister came home and found the door locked. On breaking down the door, the 15- year-old was found dead,” an official from Bhosari police station said.

Based on the complaint by the victim’s mother, a case of murder has been registered against the absconding accused, who works as an autorickshaw driver, he said.

The minor girl was strangled to death, the official said, adding that the probe is underway to ascertain if the victim had been sexually assaulted.

Full of controlled anger’ man sues cheating wife after finding out 8-year-old son is not his A man in London has sued his cheating wife after finding out their 8-year-old son is not his

The man has sued his wife for ‘every penny’ he ever spent on their son along with mental distress caused by the wife.

On the orders of High Court Judge Jonathan Cohen QC, all parties affected by the incident are not to be named in any media platform.
The judge has also asked the wife to reveal the identity of the real father to the husband, but the husband has been barred from revealing the identity of the real father to the public.

Following the discovery, the man launched a ‘raft’ of litigation starting from July.

Judge Cohen is also set to oversee the couples’ divorce proceedings to determine how the money will be divided, early next year.

The man has been described as ‘full of controlled anger’ by Judge Cohen and the woman seemed to be ‘full of remorse’ over the incident.

The husband believes the child should be told about his real father as early as possible, while the wife is against such a move. Settling the domestic argument, High Court Judge Jonathan Cohen QC has asked the parents to withhold the information from the child until ‘the time is right’.

The judge has provided a hearing schedule for the couple, to help streamline the process.

Wife alleges Triple Talaq , FIR against Lawyer

On Thursday afternoon, an FIR has been registered against a 31-year-old lawyer after his 26-year-old wife alleged that he gave her triple talaq, outside Parliament Street police station. A case under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act has been registered.

Additional DCP (New Delhi) Deepak Yadav said, “An FIR was filed Friday; no arrest has happened so far. We are collecting evidence & investigating the matter. This is the first case of triple talaq in the New Delhi district.”

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019, which makes the practice of instant triple talaq a penal offence, had received the approval of the Rajya Sabha on July 30.

The woman told The Indian Express, “On Thursday, we were both at the mediation cell at Parliament Street police station. When we stepped out, I told my husband that he’s ruined my life, & after some time he said ‘talaq, talaq, talaq’.”

She also alleged her husband beat her & her father, who was accompanying her at the time.

Husband Arrested by Police for Defaming Ex Wife on Social Media

City police’s cybercrimecell on Thursday arrested one Mohammed Arif Ghadiali of Danilimda for defaming & harassing his former wife & her kin. The complainant in the case had approached the cyber crime cell also on behalf of her niece, who is Ghadiali’s ex-wife.

According to the complaint, Ghadiali had married the complainant’s niece in 2012 & then separated from her in 2016. After separation, he created a fake social media profile & began posting lewd & indecent comments about his former wife & the complainant.

According to the complaint, Ghadiali used to call up both the complainant, & her niece, threatening to defame them. Ultimately, the woman went to police.

Inspector V B Barad of cybercrime cell said they traced the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the device from which the fake social media profile had been created & nabbed Ghadiali.

Plea in High Court for making marital rape a ground for divorce

A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday seeking direction to the Centre to frame guidelines for registration of FIR for marital rape as also laws for making it a ground for divorce.

The PIL sought that there should be a clear guideline for registration of cases related to marital rape under framed guidelines and laws, so that accountability, responsibility and liability of the authorities concerned can be fixed.

The plea, likely to be listed next week, was filed after the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain it and asked the petitioner, advocate Anuja Kapur, to approach the high court for relief.

She also sought direction to the government for fixing appropriate punishment/ penalties for violation of the guidelines and laws to be framed and enacted respectively.

“Marital rape is no less an offence than murder, culpable homicide or rape per se. It denigrates the honour and dignity of a human being, and reduces her to a chattel to be utilised for one’s self convenience and comfort. It reduces a woman to a corpse, living under the constant fear of hurt or injury. Medical evidence proves that rape has severe and long-lasting consequences for women,” the plea said.

Kapur said in her plea that at present there is an ambiguity in the implementation of the context of marital rape as a ground of punishment or penalty during the registration of such a case in ambit of law.

“There is a lot of confusion with the concerned authorities that under which law they should register an FIR / case related to marital rape. There should be a clear guideline for registration of the case of marital rape under framed guidelines and laws, so that accountability, responsibility and liability of the concerned authorities can be assigned and, penalties and punishments be awarded to safeguard the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and dignity of the woman in marriage,” the plea said.

Since marital rape at present is not a crime, there is no FIR registered by a wife against her husband in any police station, it said.

Rather, it is being compromised by the police authorities to maintain the sanctity of the marriage between the victim and the husband, it added.

“As marital rape is not a ground for a divorce in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and Special Marriage Act, 1954, it cannot be used as a ground for divorce and cruelty against husband,” it said.

wife Of Mosaddek Hossain accuses him of torture over dowry

New Delhi:-Bangladeshi cricketer Mosaddek Hossain Saikat’s wife has accused him of driving her out of their home and torturing her over dowry, a media report said today.



Mosaddek, 22, who married his cousin Sharmin Samira Usha six years ago, has been included in the Bangladesh squad for the upcoming 50-over cricket tournament Asia Cup to be held from September 13-28 in the UAE.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rosina Khan admitted the charges brought by Usha against the middle-order batsman yesterday and ordered the Sadar Upazila executive officer to investigate the case, bdnews24.com reported.

Mosaddek has been torturing Usha for dowry for a long time, her lawyer Rezaul Karim Dulal alleged.

“He (Mosaddek) tortured her and drove her out of home for 1 million taka (USD 12,003) in dowry on August 15,” he claimed.

The report said that the cricketer did not immediately respond for comments on the case.

“They have been in disagreement since they married,” the cricketer’s brother Mosabber Hossain Moon said.

Mosaddek sent her a divorce letter on August 15 but she demanded more money than mentioned in the marriage documents, the brother claimed.

“She has started the case after spreading false and misleading information as she did not get the money,” Mosabber alleged.

Matrimonial Disputes: Husband’s close should not be roped on the basis Of Omnibus Allegations,SC

NEW DELHI:The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that relatives of a husband should not be roped in cases of matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime is made out. The bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao also cautioned the lower courts to be careful in proceeding against “distant relatives” of the husband in such cases.

The court was hearing a case challenging a 2016 verdict of the Hyderabad High Court, which had dismissed a plea by the petitioners to quash criminal proceedings against them in a case of matrimonial dispute.

The apex court judgement came as it allowed a plea filed by the maternal uncles of a man challenging a Hyderabad High Court s January 2016 verdict dismissing their petition for quashing criminal proceedings against them in a matrimonial dispute case.

In this case, the wife of K. Subba Rao of Telangana was married in 2008 and they were residing in USA. After a few years of marriage, the wife returned to India and filed a complaint alleging harassment by her husband and his family members, including the maternal uncles of her husband. She also complained of the kidnapping of her son by the husband.