1951 Supreme(Mad) 289
SATYANARAYANA RAO, RAJAGOPALAN
Srinivasa Aiyar – Appellant
Versus
Saraswathi Ammal – Respondent
Advocates:
G. Gopalaswami, K.V. Ramaseshan, M.K. Nambiar, V. Venkataraman for Row and Reddi, C.A. Vaidhialingam, M.V.Ganapathi and P.S. Kailasam for Petitioner.
M. Natesan, P.I. Kailasam, T.S. Santhanam and Srinivasagopalan for Respondent.
The Advocate-General (V.K. Thiruvenkatachari) for the Public Prosecutor (V.T. Rangaswami Aiyangar) for State.
Order.-These eight petitions have been posted before us as they raise the important question of the validity of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949, Madras Act VI of 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). The Act came into force on the 29th March, 1949, before the Constitution of India came into force. In five of the petitions, the marriages in question were performed before the Constitution came into force. Crl.R.C.Nos.713 and 1431 of 1950, relate to the same marriage and Crl.R.C.Nos.506 and 1481 of 1950 and Crl.M.P.No.157 of 1951 are petitions relating to marriages performed before the Constitution of India came into force. In Crl.R.C.No.592 of 1951 and Cr.M.P.No.223 and 1099 of 1951 the alleged marriages were after the Constitution of India came into force. In all these cases, criminal proceedings were initiated for an offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 4(2) of the Act. In some of the cases proceedings were taken for the abetment of the offences against the abettors. Under section 494, Indian Penal Code:
“Whoever having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during
Click Here to Read the rest of this document