Whether the court should give police protection to a couple if the married person is living with a spouse of someone else?

Counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.1 is a

lady, who shown to be wife of petitioner No.2 – Umardeen Khan.

However, it is informed that petitioner No.1 – Vakeela was married

to respondent No.5 - Talim and petitioner No.2 - Umardeen Khan

is also a married person. Now, wife of respondent No.5 – Talim,

Vakeela wants to live with petitioner No.2 - Umardeen Khan, who

is already married under the Muslim Law. A married muslim

woman cannot get married again unless she has been divorced.

Petitioner No.2 - Umardeen Khan is also married and the

documents, which have been placed on record, do not show that a

valid Nikah has taken place between the couple and only a

Nikahnama has been executed on the stamp paper of Rs.500/-

without being before any Mutwali nor there is a Nutfah read by

any Maulvi. There is Maulvi (Priest) to the Nikahnama, who has

signed the said Nikahnama. In the contents of the Nikahnama, it

is mentioned that the petitioners were living in live in relationship.

In the opinion of this Court, the married persons living with

somebody else spouse would be amount into committing an

immoral act and a seal of approval cannot be given by this Court

by directing the police to give them protection.

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4271/2020

 Vakeela Vs  State Of Rajasthan, 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order: 06/11/2020

Print Page

Whether Married daughters born before 2005 have equal rights on ancestral property?

Bombay High Court: In a landmark judgment, a full bench comprising of  Mohit Shah CJ, MS Sanklecha and MS Sonak, JJ. held that the daughters alive on September 9, 2005 would be entitled to equal rights in ancestral property. Earlier, a division bench in the case of Vaishali S. Ganorkar vs. Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar 2012 (5) Bom CR 210 had upheld the prospective operation of the  Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which in effect disentitled all daughters born before 9 September 2005 to claim their equal interest in the Joint HUF. A single bench comprising of RG Ketkar, J. disagreed with the decision of the Ganorkar case and concluded that the amended Section 6 had retrospective effect from the date of the enactment of the Principal Act and is applicable to all daughters who are born before or after 2005 as a daughter becomes a coparcener in her own right by  her birth itself.  When the matter was referred to this Court, the Court agreed with the decision of Justice Ketkar.

Print Page