Dear Sir,
If a custom is prevailing over several decade, its valid under any law and there is no need to get a formal decree from the court. But when some one challenges such marriage or divorce, you need to prove the custom. Court in such cases decide whether the marriage or divorce is valid or not.
Tribal can't be prosecuted for bigamy under IPC: SC
The Supreme Court has affirmed a Delhi High Court judgment that in the absence of a notification in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, no case for prosecution of a husband - a tribal (Santhal) - for bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code was made out by the appellant-wife, also a tribal (Oraon), because ``the second marriage solemnised by him cannot be termed void either under the 1955 Act or any alleged custom having the force of law''.
(According to sub-section 2 of Section 2, the 1995 Act shall not apply to any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Centre directs otherwise in a gazette notification).
As the parties admittedly belong to the `Scheduled Tribes' within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366, as notified by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Acts 63 of 1956, 108 of 1976, 18 of 1987 and 15 of 1990 passed in terms of Article 342 and ``in the absence of specific pleadings, evidence and proof of the alleged `custom' making the second marriage void, no offence under Section 494 of the IPC can possibly be made out against the respondent,'' a Bench said.
Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi held that the trial magistrate and the High Court ``have rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant''.
The Bench, which included Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas noted that in order to prove that the second marriage was void, the appellant was under an obligation to show the existence of a `custom' which made the marriage null and ineffectual, having no force of law or binding effect, incapable of being enforced in law or non-est. ``The fact of second marriage being void is a sine qua non for the applicability of Section 494 IPC.''
The Bench, however, said the appellant ``is at liberty to get her right - (to maintenance, succession and other benefits as `the legally wedded wife' of the respondent) - established by way of civil proceedings in a competent court''. ``If any such proceedings are initiated, the same would be decided on their merits in accordance with the principles of the pleadings and proof, not being influenced by any of the observations made by the trial magistrate or the High Court.''
The woman filed a criminal complaint in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, stating her marriage was solemnised with the respondent in Delhi ``according to Hindu rites and customs''. But he solemnised a second marriage with another woman (accused 2).
The wife relied upon a custom in the tribe ``which mandated monogamy as a rule''.
It was conceded by the appellant that ``the parties to the petition are two `tribals,' who otherwise profess Hinduism, but their marriage being out of the purview of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the light of Section 2(2) of the 1955 Act, are thus governed only by their Santal customs and usage''.