PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN LILLY THOMAS –VS- UNION OF INDIA (2002) LRI 623 & QUEEN EMPRESS –VS- RAMAAKKA ILR 8 MAD.5.

 

PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN LILLY THOMAS –VS- UNION OF INDIA (2002) LRI 623 & QUEEN EMPRESS –VS- RAMAAKKA ILR 8 MAD.5.

 

Principles laid down in Lilly Thomas –VS- Union of India (2002) LRI 623 & Queen Empress –VS- Ramakka ILR 8 Mad.5. are as follows:

LILLY THOMAS –VS- UNION OF INDIA (2002) LRI 623

The supreme court of india settled the law once for all in its Sarala Mudgal ruling of 1995 affirmed in Lilly Thomas case of 2000.

We are in complete agreement with the thinking of the supreme court. The verdict that a married non – muslim even on embracing Islam cannot contact another marriage without first getting his first marriage dissolved is undoubtedly in conformity with the letter and spirit of Islamic law on bigamy.

In any case, this is now the inviolable law of india – whatever one may erroneously presume the Islamic law to be. Unfortunately this law as settled by supreme court is now widely known to the public at large and is being constanly violated in numerous cases. The need of the hour, therefore, is to turn the apex court’s ruling into a clear legislative provision inserted into all matrimonial law statutes of the country.

Though these rulings were handed down in the context of the Hindu marriage act 1955 they will apply to all marriages governed by the other family – law statutes that are pari material.

On a careful consideration of all aspects of the trend prevailing among married non – muslims to try to defy the law by marrying again on embracing to Islam, we recommend insertion of the following additional provisions into various family – law statutes:

1.  In the Hindu marriage act 1955, after section 17 a new section 17 –A be inserted to the effect that a married person whose marriage is governed by this act cannot marry again even after changing religion unless the first marriage is dissolved or declared null and void in accordance with  law, and if such a marriage is contracted it will be null and void and shall attract application of sections 494 – 495 of the Indian penal code 1860

2.  A similar provision be inserted at suitable places into the Christian marriage act 1972, the parsi marriage and divorce act 1936 and the dissolution of muslim marriage act 1939.

3.  The proviso to section 4 of dissolution of muslim marriages act 1939 – saying that this section would not apply to a married women who was originally a non – muslim if she reverts to her original faith – be deleted.

4.  In the special marriage act 1954 a provision be inserted to the effect that if an existing marriage, be whatever law it is governed, becomes inter – religious due to change of religion by either party it will thenceforth be governed by the provisions of special marriage act including its anti – bigamy provisions.

5.  The offences relating to bigamy under sections 494 – 495 of the Indian penal code 1860 be made cognizable by necessary amendment in the code of criminal procedure 1973.

Although we fully agree with the fact that the traditional understanding of the muslim law on bigamy is gravely faulty and conflicts with the true Islamic law in letter and spirit, to keep our recommendations away from any unhealthy controversy we are not recommending any change in this regard  in muslim law.

QUEEN EMPRESS –VS- RAMAAKKA ILR 8 MAD.5

The accused woman ran to jump in the well uttering that she would commit suicide. Meanwhile, by – standers caught her. The police arrested her and instituted a case against her for attempt to suicide.

Judgment:

The court held that when she was caught by the by-standers, she intended to jump in the well, however she might have changed her mind before jumping into the well. She was acquitted.