A State Legislature's territorial jurisdiction is limited to the boundaries of the State, and it cannot legislate on matters occurring outside the State, including declaring marriages contracted outside the State void or constituting such marriages as criminal offenses.

Headnote:
BOMBAY PREVENTION OF HINDU BIGAMOUS MARRIAGES ACT - CONSTITUTIONALITY - SECTIONS 4(B) AND 5 - VOID MARRIAGES AND CRIMINAL OFFENCES - TERRITORIAL NEXUS - DOMICILE - LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE - INTERNATIONAL LAW PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:

The accused, married in Bombay in 1948, contracted a second marriage in Bikaner in 1955. His first wife filed a complaint under the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946). The Magistrate acquitted the accused as the Act was repealed by the Central Act 25 of 1955 before the complaint was filed. The State appealed, raising questions about the validity of the Act, particularly Sections 4(b) and 5, which declare bigamous marriages void and constitute them as criminal offenses, respectively.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946, were ultra vires the State Legislature and, therefore, void. The Court found that the State Legislature lacked the territorial jurisdiction to declare marriages contracted outside the State of Bombay as void or to constitute such marriages as criminal offenses.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Legislature had the competence to declare a marriage contracted outside the State of Bombay void. 2. Whether the State Legislature could constitute the contracting of a bigamous marriage outside the State an offense punishable by the Courts set up in the State.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The territorial jurisdiction of a legislature is limited to the boundaries of the province or State. 2. The State Legislature has no extra-territorial powers. 3. The expression "domiciled" used in the Act is a misnomer and does not carry the implications of domicile in international law. 4. The mere fact that a person is permanently resident in a State does not constitute a territorial nexus necessary to confer jurisdiction or competence upon the Legislature to legislate on matters occurring outside the State. 5. Crime is local, and it is difficult to conceive of a territorial nexus in the case of crime. 6. The State Legislature cannot punish a resident for contracting a bigamous marriage outside its boundaries.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Magistrate's order of acquittal.

Judgment

Chagla, C.J

1. This Full Bench was constituted to consider the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, which is Act 25 o£ 1946 and the question arises in the following circumstances. The accused in this case was married in Bombay in 1948. On 16th of May, 1955 he married a second wife at Bikaner. On 5th July 1955 his first wife lodged a complaint with the First Class Judicial Magistrate at Sholapur. The learned Magistrate held that inasmuch as the prosecution was launched after the Act 25 of 1946 was repealed by the Central Act 25 of 1955 which came into force on 18th May 1955, the accused was entitled to an order of acquittal. Against the order of acquittal, the State of Bombay came in appeal in this Court and the matter came before Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Palnitkar and these learned Judges felt considerable doubt as to whether Radhabai Mohandas v. Bombay State, 57 Bom LR 827 : ((S) AIR 1953 Bom 439)(A), had been correctly decided, and therefore, they referred the question as to the validity of the Act to the extent that it applies to marriages contracted outside the State of Bombay to a Full Bench.

2. Now, turning to the provisions of the Act, with which we are concerned, Section 3 defines a bigamous marriage and the definition is the ordinary definition of what a bigamous marriage is. Section 4 provides :

"Notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary, a bigamous marriage shall be void,

(a) if it is contracted in this State after the coming into force of this Act,

(b) if it is contracted beyond the limits of this State after the coming into force of this Act and either or both the contracting parties to such marriage are domiciled in this State",

and Section 5 which is the penal section provides :

"Notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary, whoever not being a minor contracts a bigamous marriage which is void under Section 4 shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

And Section 8 which has also a bearing in this case is a section dealing with jurisdiction which provides :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 5 of 1898, an offence under Section 5 may be tried by any Court of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class."

3. Now, before we go to the substantial matter which has necessitated this Full Bench, we might dispose of one or two matters which are not of substance or importance. We are in entire agreement with the view taken by the learned Judges who decided 57 Bom LR 827: ( (S) AIR 1955 Bom 439)(A), that Section 8 is intra vires the State Legislature and it is competent to the State Legislature notwithstanding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct that any offence can be tried by any Court in the State of Bombay. We are also in agreement with the view taken by Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Palnitkar that the learned Magistrate was obviously in error when he held that although the alleged offence was committed when the Bombay Act was in force, the mere fact that the complaint was filed after the repeal of the Act precluded the State from prosecuting the accused. If the accused is guilty and if he has committed an offence, then the mere fact that prosecution is launched after the repeal of the Act which constituted the offence cannot possibly affect the guilt of the accused or the right of the State to prosecute him or the jurisdiction of the Court to convict him. But the real question that we have to consider is whether in the first place by Section 4 the State Legislature can declare a marriage void which has been contracted outside the State of Bombay and the second question is, which is connected with the first, whether the State Legislature can constitute the contracting of a bigamous marriage outside the State an offence punishable by the Courts set up in the State

Click Here to Read the rest of this document