Buddha Mal Vs. Meena and anr.

Buddha Mal vs Meena and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Aug 06, 1992

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757576

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/757576
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: N.L. Tibrewal, J.
Decided On: Aug 06, 1992
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Special Leave to Appeal No. 84 of 1990
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 17; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 497

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Buddha Mal

Advocate T.P. Sharma, Adv.

Respondent

Meena and anr.

Advocate Satyavrat Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 17; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 497
Cases Referred: Gopal Lal v. Stale of Rajasthan
Reported In: I(1993)DMC231

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the defence witnesses, the trial court acquitted both the accused persons from the charges levelled against them......buddha mal, the accused ram swaroop could not be convicted under section 497 ipc on the complaint filed by him.4. the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage of the complainant buddha mal with smt. meera is proved as 'nata' marriage, is a valid marriage according to the customs prevailed amongst tellies. in this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on gopal lal v. stale of rajasthan (1979 cr. l.r. (sc) 255).5. here, the dispute is not, whether buddha mat could have contracted a 'nata' marriage in accordance with the customs prevailing in the community of tellies, but the dispute is that the alleged marriage of buddha mal with smt. meera, if contracted, was contracted when the earlier marriage of smt. meera with suwa lal was subsisting. section 17 of the hindu marriage act makes it clear that, any marriage between two hindus solemnised after the commencement of this act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living. hence, the second marriage of smt. meera with buddha mal was void as the earlier marriage of smt. meera with suwa lal was subsisting. therefore, the complainant buddha mal could not be said to be the legally married husband of smt. meera no as to file a complaint against ram swaroop for the offence under section 497 ipc.6. consequently, the view taken by the learned trial magistrate cannot be laid to be erroneous in law, and there is no substance in this application for grant of leave to appeal. this application is hereby rejected.

Full Judgment

N.L. Tibrewal, J.

1. This application for grant of leave to appeal is filed against the order of acquittal dated March 2, 1990 of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The case was instituted on a complaint filed by the petitioner on 20-4-84. The laid complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Manak Chowk, where a criminal case was registered. Thereafter, the police investigated the case and submitted a negative report on 7-4-84 that no offence was made out against the accused person.

The Magistrate, thereafter, recorded the statement of the complainantandthe witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the accused-non-petitioner Ram Swaroop under Section 497 IPC and under Section 380 IPC against the non-petitioner Smt.Meera.

2. Thereafter, the accused person appeared in the court to face the trial. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the defence witnesses, the trial court acquitted both the accused persons from the charges levelled against them.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, so far Ram Swaroop is concerned, offence is made out against him under Section 497 IPC. The learned trial court acquitted the accused Ram Swaroop on the ground that before the marriage of complainant Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera, she was married to Suwa Lal and that marriage was subsisting, inasmuch as, there was no material on the record to prove that the said earlier marriage was desolved prior to the marriage of Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera. The learned trial Megistrate, therfore, was of the view that the marriage of Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera itself was void and she was not a legally married wife of Buddha Mal, the accused Ram Swaroop could not be convicted under Section 497 IPC on the complaint filed by him.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage of the complainant Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera is proved as 'Nata' marriage, is a valid marriage according to the customs prevailed amongst Tellies. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Gopal Lal v. Stale of Rajasthan (1979 Cr. L.R. (SC) 255).

5. Here, the dispute is not, whether Buddha Mat could have contracted a 'Nata' marriage in accordance with the customs prevailing in the community of Tellies, but the dispute is that the alleged marriage of Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera, if contracted, was contracted when the earlier marriage of Smt. Meera with Suwa Lal was subsisting. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes it clear that, any marriage between two Hindus solemnised after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living. Hence, the second marriage of Smt. Meera with Buddha Mal was void as the earlier marriage of Smt. Meera with Suwa Lal was subsisting. Therefore, the complainant Buddha Mal could not be said to be the legally married husband of Smt. Meera no as to file a complaint against Ram Swaroop for the offence under Section 497 IPC.

6. Consequently, the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate cannot be laid to be erroneous in law, and there is no substance in this application for grant of leave to appeal. This application is hereby rejected.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1992 Same Parties Buddha Mal vs Meena and anr. Same Subject Family Same Judge N.L. Tibrewal, J. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 17; Indian Penal Code (IP...

Family