It is a case on section 493 IPC. In this case two judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India differs on the applicability of the section on the facts of the case. Hon'ble Markandey Katju base his opinion on an agreement between parties to merry that this agreement itself shows that lady were not under beilef that she is marreied wife of accused. On the other hand Hon'ble Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra placed reliance on living together for 9 years and application for registration of marriage. Hon'ble Justice Katju also made several observation with regard to the distinction of law from morality and tried to held that it may be immoral to live with a woman without marries for 9 years but not an offense. Matter was referred to larger bench. With due respect it is submitted that Justice Katju wrongly divert his discussion on the morality and law. Though he rightly concluded that "It is true that the appellant has not behaved like a gentleman. He lived with the complainant for nine years and had two children by her, and hence as a decent person he should have married her which he did not do." but failed to understand that if it is immoral to live with a lady without marries then living with a men for 9 years without marries also come under the same preview. It was not the duty of the court that which of the party is gentlemen and which is not. Court has only one duty to see whether ingredients section 493 is attracted or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment