Moot Arguements
Moot Arguements
Moot Arguements
Application of Act.
(1) This Act applies
(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a
Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and
(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a
Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not
have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in
respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.
Explanation. The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion, as
the case may be:
(a) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas
or Sikhs by religion;
(b) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or
Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group or family
to which such parent belongs or belonged; and
(c) any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall
apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article
366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official
Gazette, otherwise directs.
(3) The expression Hindu in any portion of this Act shall be construed as if it included a
person who, though not a Hindu by religion, is, nevertheless, a person to whom this Act
applies by virtue of the provisions contained in this section. State Amendment Pondicherry:
In section 2, insert the following sub-section: (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the Renoncants of the Union
territory of Pondicherry . [ Vide Regn. 7 of 1963, sec. 2 and Sch. (w.e.f. 1-10-1963).]
Kailash
MANU/MH/1110/2007
Section 5 (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage
governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;
Section 3 (f) (i) Sapinda relationship with reference to any person extends as far as the third
generation (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the
line of ascent through the father, the line being traced upwards in each case from the
person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation;
(ii) two persons are said to be sapindas of each other if one is a lineal ascendant of the other
within the limits of sapinda relationship, or if they have a common lineal ascendant who is
within the limits of sapinda relationship with reference to each of them;
7
Further the petitioner did not file for annulment of the marriage under
section 12 of the HMA.
It is further submitted that even if the contention of the respondent is
to be believed, the marriage would only be voidable under section 12
of HMA and not a void one under section 11 of the said act. Till the
decree of annulment is obtained, the marriage is a valid and subsisting
marriage till that date.
That the Section 11 of HMA states as under:
Void marriages. Any marriage
solemnized
after
the
2006(10)ADJ324
THAT
THE
PETITIONER
HAD
COMPLETE
18
YEARS
AND
MANU/MH/006/1994
Section 114 - Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the
existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the
common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their
relation to the facts of the particular case.
AIR 2016(NOC)4(Cal)
society. When the wife who had withdrawn from the society of her
husband did not discharge her burden, the only conclusion, which can
be arrived at, is that the respondent had withdrawn from the society of
her husband voluntarily and without any reasonable excuse.