Polyandry back in spotlight after brothers marry woman in Himachal: What law says
Is polyandry legally recognised? As far as the law is concerned, polyandry is not legally recognised in India. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — which governs marriages among Hindus — a valid marriage must be monogamous.Section 5 of the Act stipulates that "neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage." This makes bigamy or polyandry (having multiple husbands) legally invalid.In fact, bigamy is punishable under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse without legal divorce.Even the Special Marriage Act, a person cannot have more than one living spouse at the time of marriage.The Act states that at the time of the marriage, neither party has a spouse living, which means that if either person is already married to someone who is still alive, the new marriage is void under the Act.However, it is important to note that the Hindu Marriage Act does not apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe, unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.Under the Constitution, "Scheduled Tribes" refers to such tribes or tribal communities, or parts or groups within them, as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.As far as cases like the present one are concerned, Indian personal law does allow for customary practices to be taken into account, especially in tribal communities.Section 13 of the Evidence Act provides for facts which are relevant when right or custom is in question, which basically allows parties to present evidence to establish customs, when those customs are legally in issue.Through judicial interpretation its also been evolved by courts that customs have to pass certain tests, including whether they are ancient, certain, reasonable, not opposed to public policy, morality, etc.Through judicial interpretation, it has also been established by the courts that customs must pass certain tests — including whether they are ancient, certain, reasonable, and not opposed to public policy or morality.Speaking to India Today TV, Advocate Rajat Nair said that under the law, these marriages would be void but someone has to challenge it. If there is consensus and immediate family members have no problem and no one approaches the court, occasion to seek this marriage as void will not arise.advertisementHe said that under law, marriage would be recognised only with one person, and person can't be married to two persons at same time.He agreed that these cases may fall under the grey area as these practices persist as customary tradition in certain areas and amongst some tribal communities, adding that courts have repeatedly emphasised that monogamy is the only valid form of marriage under the actOn the other hand, Advocate Ibad Mushtaq said that as far as practices of Scheduled Tribes are concerned, the same are not governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, no disability attaches to the customary practices of STs. The marriage would therefore be valid.Advocate Tarini Nayak said that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does carve out certain exceptions in favour of certain customary practices, thereby allowing for the possibility of multiple marriages if sanctioned by custom.Furthermore, a potential loophole exists within Section 5 of the Act, which stipulates that at the time of the solemnization of marriage, neither party should have a spouse living.advertisementThis wording arguably implies that if a person marries two persons simultaneously—without either party being or having a 'spouse' in a legal sense at that precise moment—such a union may technically fall outside the ambit of a void marriage, thus creating an interpretative gap in the statutory scheme.- Ends
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Jagdeep Dhankhar draws curtains on a stormy Rajya Sabha run
Jagdeep Dhankhar, who resigned as the Vice-President late on Monday citing his health, is no stranger to disagreements with the Opposition. Dhankhar was elected Vice-President in August 2022 and his term as the Rajya Sabha Chairman began on a controversial note during the Winter Session that year as he called the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act a 'glaring instance' of 'severe compromise' of parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the 'mandate of the people'. Since then, there have been several instances when he and Opposition MPs have not seen eye to eye. In August 2023, Dhankhar told the Opposition that he 'could not and would not' direct Prime Minister Narendra Modi to be present in the House as it was the PM's prerogative like any other MP to come to Parliament. He made this statement as the Opposition benches continued to demand the PM's presence in the Rajya Sabha to address them on the issue of violence in Manipur. The ties between the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Opposition hit a low during the Winter Session last year when 146 MPs were suspended from both Houses of Parliament, mostly over their demand for Union Home Minister Amit Shah's statement on a Parliament security breach, followed by a discussion on the matter. It was the highest-ever number of suspensions in a Parliament session. As the proceedings came to a halt, Dhankhar wrote to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Upper House, about the 'acrimony and disruptions'. Kharge replied saying that 'he was firmly in favour of dialogue and discussion'. In his letter, Dhankhar highlighted that the latter's 'refusal to meet him to resolve the political stalemate' was 'not in sync with parliamentary practices' and sought a meeting. Kharge had declined Dhankhar's invitation and in a letter said that the mass suspension of MPs was 'premeditated' and 'weaponised' by the ruling party to sabotage parliamentary practices. In June 2024, Dhankhar courted controversy after Kharge entered the Well of House during a protest against paper leaks, with Dhankhar saying this was the first time that a LoP had done such a thing and called it a 'stain' on Parliament. Kharge responded by saying he was trying to grab the attention of the Chairman who was looking towards the Treasury benches. In July 2024, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal questioned the manner in which the Upper House was being run by Dhankhar and claimed that in no country the presiding officer of a House 'frequently interrupts' members during their speeches. The same month, Dhankhar said the RSS has 'unimpeachable credentials' and Constitutional rights to contribute to the development of the nation. 'RSS is an organisation which is a global think tank of the highest order…,' he said in the House while responding to a comment from Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman that the government's main criterion for appointments was if a person belongs to the RSS. In September 2024, in an apparent reference to Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi, Dhankhar, without naming him, said nothing was more condemnable than someone holding a Constitutional post becoming 'part of enemies of the nation'. Dhankhar was speaking at Parliament to the third batch of the Rajya Sabha internship programme. During his visit to the United States that week, Gandhi said 'love, respect, and humility' were missing from Indian politics. In December last year, Dhankhar became the first person holding one of the top two constitutional posts to face the prospect of impeachment as the Opposition submitted a notice to move a no-confidence motion against him, a first in Indian Parliamentary history. However, after 60 INDIA bloc MPs gave a notice in the Rajya Sabha to bring a resolution for removal of Dhankhar, Deputy Chairman Harivansh rejected it, saying the petition was 'severely flawed', does not adhere to the requirement of 14 days' notice period and was 'drawn in haste and hurry' to 'mar the reputation' of Dhankhar and to 'damage the constitutional institution'. Earlier this year, in April, after the Supreme Court ruling set a three-month timeline for the President to decide on Bills referred by Governors of states, Dhankhar had said that India cannot have a situation where the judiciary directs the President. While the Supreme Court ruling addressed the long-running dispute between Governors and Opposition-ruled state governments, Dhankhar added that his worries are at the 'very highest level' and asked, 'There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country?' Most recently, in June, Dhankhar waded into the political debate over the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, referring to their addition to the Constitution by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency as 'sacrilege to the spirit of sanatan'. 'These words have been added as nasoor (festering wound). These words will create upheaval. Addition of these words in the Preamble during the Emergency signal betrayal of the mindset of the framers of the Constitution,' he said. Before he was elected Vice-President, Dhankhar served as the Governor of West Bengal when he had several run-ins with the government of Mamata Banerjee and became a vocal critic of the state administration. From the law and order situation in the state and post-poll violence to corruption accusations, alleged lapses in bureaucracy and the appointment of vice-chancellors in state universities, Dhankhar never shied away from criticising the government, which accused him of sitting on important BIlls. The situation took a turn for the worse when the state government in 2022 replaced the Governor with the CM as chancellor of state universities. His relationship with Mamata Banerjee became so acrimonious that the CM even blocked Dhankhar on social media. His relationship with Speaker Biman Banerjee was no less bitter, with the Speaker in 2021 complaining to then President Ram Nath Kovind about Dhankhar allegedly interfering in matters of the government. Born into a farmer's family at Kithana village in Jhunjhunu district in 1951, Dhankhar studied at a local government school before going to Sainik school in Chittorgarh. He studied law at the University of Rajasthan and became a professional lawyer, going on to serve as the president of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association. Dhankhar started his political journey with the Janata Dal and in 1989, he was elected to the Lok Sabha from Jhunjhunu. After that, he moved to state politics and was elected to the Rajasthan Assembly in 1993 from Kishangarh on a Congress ticket. He again tried his luck in the Lok Sabha elections in 1998 but lost from Jhunjhunu. Starting that year, Dhankhar served as a full-time senior advocate in the Supreme Court and in 2003 switched to the BJP. He advised the party on important legal matters.
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Jagdeep Dhankhar quits as Vice President: What he said in Rajya Sabha today; judge impeachment, cash under seat
N Tired of too many ads? go ad free now EW DELHI: Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday resigned as Vice President citing health reasons and said that he made the decision to 'prioritise health care' and act on 'medical advice.' The announcement came just hours after Dhankhar, who also served as Rajya Sabha chairman, addressed the House and raised several serious issues, including the impeachment motion against a high court judge Yashwant Varma and an incident involving unclaimed cash found under a seat in the House. In a detailed statement, Dhankhar informed the members that he had received a motion for the removal of a high court judge Yashwant varma under Article 217(1)(b) read with Article 218 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 'It is signed by more than 50 members of the Council of States and thus it meets the numerical requirement,' he said. RS | Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar's Remarks | 04:06 pm - 04:19 pm | 21 July, 2025 Explaining the technical procedure involved in such cases, Dhankhar pointed out the constitutional requirement of whether such motions are presented in one or both Houses of Parliament on the same day. 'If the motion is presented in the two houses on different dates, then the motion which is presented in the house first that alone is taken into consideration and the second motion gets nonjurisdictional,' he said. He directed the Secretary-General to verify if a similar motion had been moved in the Lok Sabha. The Law Minister, present in the House, confirmed that over 100 members had submitted such a motion there as well. Dhankhar also referred to an earlier motion from December concerning a another judge of the Allahabad high court Shekhar Yadav, PTI reported. He said the motion was initially signed by 55 members, but a scrutiny revealed that one MP had signed twice, bringing the total valid count down to 54. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 'The result was that the representation, the motion indicated there are 55 members seeking removal. But actually it was not 55, it was only 54,' he noted. He said the process for verifying signatures and authentication is still ongoing. He added that one MP, whose signature appeared twice, denied having signed the motion more than once. 'If a motion carries two signatures of the same member and the honorable member declines that he has not signed at two places but he has signed only at one place, the matter becomes serious and culpable,' Dhankhar said, while stressing the need for Parliament to uphold transparency and integrity. 'This August House has to set very high standards. If we do not live up to the highest expectations of the people, then we'll be putting things under the carpet and not subjecting them to deep investigation,' he said. In a startling revelation, Dhankhar said that 'on seat number 222 a bundle of rupees 500 notes was found.' He added, 'What is more surprising and deeply concerning is not that a pad of notes was found but no one has owned it. No one has claimed it. This is quite serious.' He said the matter would be referred to floor leaders for further discussion and direction. Reacting to Dhankhar's resignation, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said, 'I wish him the best of health, because I am saddened, because I have a very good relationship with him. I have known him for 30-40 years. We were paired with each other. We have appeared against each other in matters. We have a bonhomie between us that is quite unique. I always respected him, and he always respected me. He has been to some family occasions of ours, and I am saddened and I hope that he is healthy and has a long, long life, and I wish him well. We may have had differences, in respect to our political views, or on opinions, but at a personal level, we had a very strong bond. Whenever I needed time to speak in the House, I met him personally in his chamber, and he never refused me, and gave me a little more time than is otherwise available to independent members of Parliament.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Assam govt demolishes IHM campus to clear waterbody in Guwahati
Guwahati, The Institute of Hotel Management was demolished on Monday to free Silsako Beel in Guwahati city, officials said. Assam govt demolishes IHM campus to clear waterbody in Guwahati The administration is eyeing to clear the natural waterbody from various structures, both private and government, to mitigate flood problems in the state capital, said Housing and Urban Affairs Minister Jayanta Malla Baruah. "This is a difficult yet necessary decision. While IHM has served the city in the education sector, the pressing need to safeguard Guwahati from devastating floods demands urgent action. We are acting for the greater good of the city's future," he told reporters here. The IHM, a central government institute and spread over 15 bighas , is being relocated to a temporary building on GS Road, Baruah said. "We have allotted 30 bighas to IHM in Sonapur area. We will construct their infrastructure and hand it over to the institute," he added. Baruah said that eviction and clearance work at IHM marks an important development in making the 800-bigha reservoir project at Silsakoo, envisioned to address the city's chronic urban flooding. Demolition of the IHM campus started with classroom blocks. Hostel structures and other ancillary facilities will be dismantled in the coming days, he added. "This is the largest single institutional demolition within the reservoir zone. We aim to complete the process within 15 days, carrying out shifting and demolition simultaneously," he said. Earlier, the government had evicted the Omeo Kumar Das Institute of Social Change and Development and Institute of Cooperative Management from Silsako Beel. "The remaining two facilities one tennis court and Ginger hotel will also be evicted from the location. We are in discussion with them right now," the minister said. He said the reservoir site, spread across approximately 800 bighas , is expected to be excavated during the upcoming dry season. The government in 2008 had declared Silsako Beel, surrounded by Chachal, Hengerabari, Pathar Quarry and Satgaon areas, a protected waterbody in Guwahati through an Act and prohibited any construction or settlement in around 1,800 bighas of lake area. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
