• About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Law Trend
  • google-play
  • apple-store
  • Login
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
No Result
View All Result

Customary Divorce Valid-Disciplinary Proceedings for Bigamy Qashed

by Law Trend
September 20, 2020
in Court Updates, Trending Stories
3 min read
madras high court
528
SHARES
1.5k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via WhatsappShare via EmailPinterest

On 09.09.2020, The Madurai bench of Madras High Court passed a Judgment in the case of Sudalaimani vs The Deputy Inspector of Police and other, recognizing the concept of Customary Divorce

Brief facts of Sudalaimini vs Deputy Inspector General of Police, (17504 of 2014)

The petitioner was accused of marrying a second time even though his first wife was still alive and there was no evidence that the petitioner had divorced his wife before marrying a second time.

The Deputy General of police looked into the matter and concluded that the petitioner had violated Rule 23(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Conduct Rules, 1964. As a punishment, his rank was reduced to Gr.1 PC from that of Head Constable for two years.

The contention of the Counsels

Senior Advocate, Mr Veera Kathoravan who is the counsel of the petitioner contended that a customary divorce took place between the petitioner’s first wife and the petitioner in the year 2006 and that he got married a second time soon after that. Therefore the punishment was unwarranted and bad in law.

The counsel appearing for the respondents stated that there were frequent fights between the petitioner and his first wife, and they got separated because the elders of the community had intervened. However, this should not be construed as a legal divorce proceeding, and the counsel also stated that the petitioner never informed his seniors that he got married a second time and this showed malafide intention on the part of the petitioner,

The Court discovered that even though the petitioner was punished for marrying a second time, there was no record that the marriage between the petitioner and his alleged second wife ever took place.

While hearing the arguments of both the parties, the Court also delved upon the concept of customary divorce which has been a long-standing part of the history of our nation and in many areas is still very prevalent. 

The petitioner also contended that customary divorce took place between the petitioner and his first wife and was brokered by all the senior members of the community. He placed reliance on Subramani & Ors Vs. M Chandralekha 2005 (9) SCC 407 and Yamanaji H. Jadhav vs Nirmala 2002 (2) SCC 637 where the Court categorically held that ‘if a party pleads customary divorce then it should be established by the person in his pleadings before the Court and the Court may pass a favourable order if the Court determines that such a custom was prevalent in the community. If the person pleading customary divorce cannot prove such a custom, then the Court should not entertain the plea.

The decision of the Court

Justice RMT. Teeka Raman heard both the parties and referred to the case laws submitted by them and held that in the community to which both the petitioner and his first wife belonged, customary divorce through the intervention of elders was common. The terms of the divorce were mutually agreed to by both the parties.

The Court also held that it was proved beyond doubt that there was a marriage dissolution deed which was signed on 02.08.2003 by the petitioner and his first wife and even the delinquent’s first wife admitted to the existence of the deed.

The Court agreed with the statement of the petitioner that customary divorce was prevalent in his community, and he married a second time after his first wife accepted the customary divorce. The Court opined that charges of bigamy could not be levelled against the petitioner.

The Court also noted that the case was not filed by the first wife but by the brother of his second wife and it was done to vilify and pressure the petitioner as a separate property case was going on between the parties.

The Hon’ble Judge stated that a plea of customary divorce is a valid defence in cases of departmental inquiry and held that the disciplinary action that was taken against the petitioner was unwarranted and should be set aside in the interest of Justice. He also allowed the writ petition.

Read Judgment
Tags: all high courtcustomarydisciplinary proceedingsdivorcehigh court ordersmadrastrend2

Related Posts

justice uma nath singh
Trending Stories

Lokayukta of Nagaland Justice Uma Nath Singh Agrees to Resign With Condition

January 27, 2021
Allahabad HIgh Court New
Trending Stories

Driving “Jugar” Vehicle is inherently rash and negligent: Allahabad HC

January 27, 2021
Narendra Modi
Court Updates

No Writ Can be Issued Barring Media From Calling Central Government as “Modi Government”

January 26, 2021

POPULAR NEWS

  • advocate sticker fortuner

    Where is the Provision of Using Advocate Sticker on Vehicle?

    5042 shares
    Share 2017 Tweet 1261
  • What is the tenure of protection granted under Anticipatory Bail? :SC 5 Judges

    4808 shares
    Share 1922 Tweet 1202
  • Air Asia Crashes Against Gaurav Taneja; Court Says Airline Suppressed Facts

    4647 shares
    Share 1859 Tweet 1162
  • Husband-Wife Take Oath as High Court Judge

    3248 shares
    Share 1299 Tweet 812
  • Is Using Stickers of ‘‘Advocate’’ on Vehicle legally Allowed?

    3187 shares
    Share 1275 Tweet 797
Law Trend

Rabhyaa Foundation has started this platform on values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The object of this platform is to create informed citizens with recent legal updates, Judgments, Legislations of Parliament and State Legislatures, and views of experts in the field of law, in plain and pointed language, for the intellectual development of citizens.
Our tag line “The Line of Law” guides that this......
Read More

Follow Us On Social Media

Subscribe to our News Letter

Sign Up for weekly newsletter to get the latest news, Updates and amazing offers delivered directly in to your inbox.

Categories

  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Columns
  • Bare Acts and Rules
  • Online Internship
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend – हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
      • Uttar Pradesh Acts
      • Uttar Pradesh Rules
      • Uttrakhand
      • DELHI
  • Webinar/Videos
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
  • Android App
  • IOS APP

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Fill the forms bellow to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In