Case Details
| Case Name | Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah and Anr. |
| Case Number | AIR 2001 SC 938 |
| Jurisdiction | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi |
| Petitioner | Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur |
| Respondent | Durga Charan Hansdah and Anr. |
| Date of Judgement | 14th February 2001 |
Introduction
The dominance of the Hinduism culture and rituals were continuously running into the tribes from the decades. The communities follow these hindu rituals and culture as a way of life.
However, the tribe was not included under the application of hindu personal laws. In order to preserve their culture, tradition and customs, it is crucial. The Article 342 of the Indian Constitution talks about the scheduled tribes. It is to be noted that the tribe does not mention in any order or notification under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. But the members of such tribes would be considered as Hindus.
Furthermore, The tribe may be deemed to be Hindu even if it is not mentioned in such an order upon further notification by the central government as per the section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. “Surajmani v Durga Charan Hansdah” underlined the scope of definition of hindu under this act.
Facts of the Case:
(1) A married couple, the husband and wife both belong to a tribal community. The husband was a follower of the “Oraon tribe” while she belonged to the “santhal tribe”. These both tribes are mentioned in Part XII of the constitution, 1950.
(2) Husband (respondent) got second married during the lifetime of his first marriage with durga charan. They both are followers of Hindu religion.
(3) The wife filed a complaint before the court (Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) against her husband for the offence of bigamy, and pleaded that he should be liable for Section 494 of the IPC.
(4) The Court at New Delhi (chief metropolitan magistrate) was observed that:
Hence, the court stated that there is no violation of the wife’s right and the husband was not liable for bigamy. From the perspective of their customs, it is not prohibited to perform a second marriage.
The appeal was made in the high court in Delhi and the court also upheld the decision of the chief metropolitan magistrate court. Gives the order that the second marriage is not considered void so that it deems valid under the law. At last the honorable supreme court passed the judgment which we have discussed below.
Petitioner Argument
The petitioner's argument was that the marriage should be governed under the santhal customs, even though the parties deemed to be hindu or professed hinduism. She agreed before the trial court that she is hindu by religion.
The santhal customs does not allow poligamy that is why the second marriage done by her husband was “void ab initio”. The husband can not solemnize the second marriage at the same time when his previous marriage is in existence. She contended that because of the solemnized second marriage, he is liable under section 494 of Indian Penal Code for the commission of bigamy.
Respondent Argument
He argued that the second marriage was solemnized under the customs or traditions of the santhal tribe. That is why, he can not be liable for bigamy under section 494 of IPC. There are no restrictions provided under the law which prevent him from solemnizing the second marriage.
Issues:
1. Who is a ‘Hindu’?
2. Whether the respondent is liable for section 494 or not?
2. Whether a custom is capable of wiping out the liability of the person?
Judgement:
First of all, the Court cleared the question of ‘Who is a Hindu?’. Under section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 defined who is Hindu. This section said that the Virashaiva, Lingayat, followers of Brahmo, Prarthana and Arya samaj along with the followers of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikh are considered as Hindu.
Apart from this, who does not qualify as a ‘Hindu’? This answer is also given in this section which says Parsis, Muslims, Christians and Jews are not said to be Hindu by religion within the territory of India.
The appellant had failed to produce enough document that proves the second marriage was void of the respondent. She does not provide any existence of a custom, reasonable and abides by the rule of law which make the second marriage unconstitutional.
Hence, the Court declared that there is no offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The husband will not be charged under the offence of bigamy. However, the Court stated that the appellant is entitled for getting maintenance from her husband (respondent).
My Own View:
It becomes a usual practice at this time to cheat their spouse. Many men and women have been observed to cheat on their spouses when they are married.
According to the hindu religion, marriage is an unbreakable tie between two people. It is a sacrament and important practice in order to procreation of children.
Indian culture is rich in Vedas, Puranas, and Scriptures, so all of us are reliable and modern in our own way. People need to realize that spirituality is only able to be manifested via modernism, hard labor, and liberal philosophy.
Dating Apps:
There are many apps available in the market for extramarital affairs which have seen exponential growth. The practice of polygamy must end right away in order to prevent the next generation from being led in the wrong directions and from destroying morals and social order.
Conclusion
This is a landmark judgment under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which highlighted the issue related to bigamy. Respondent committed bigamy, since the lifetime of his first marriage. The wife failed to produce enough evidence to make the respondent guilty of bigamy.
In the result, The appeal was dismissed by the court due to lack of evidence against the respondent. That is why, it is important to give proper evidence in order to make the person liable under any offence.
