Second marriage against to the service rules and with out intimation and permission - The question raised for consideration relates to validity of order dated 17th June, 2008 removing the appellant from service for proved misconduct of contracting another marriage during existence of the first marriage without permission of the Government in violation of Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 (for short "the Conduct Rules") . = In our view, a statutory provision casting disqualification on contesting for, or holding, an elective office is not violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. . ..........It may be permissible for Muslims to enter into four marriages with four women and for anyone whether a Muslim or belonging to any other community or religion to procreate as many children as he likes but no religion in India dictates or mandates as an obligation to enter into bigamy or polygamy or to have children more than one. What is permitted or not prohibited by a religion does not become a religious practice or a positive tenet of a religion. A practice does not acquire the sanction of religion simply because it is permitted. Assuming the practice of having more wives than one or procreating more children than one is a practice followed by any community or group of people, the same can be regulated or prohibited by legislation in the interest of public order, morality and health or by any law providing for social welfare and reform which the impugned legislation clearly does." In view of the above, we are unable to hold that the Conduct Rule in any manner violates Article 25 of the Constitution. -2015 S.C. msklawreports

Second marriage against to the service rules and with out intimation and permission -The question raised for consideration relates to validity of  order
dated 17th June,  2008  removing  the  appellant  from  service  for  proved
misconduct of contracting another marriage during  existence  of  the  first
marriage without permission of the Government in violation of Rule 29(1)  of
the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules,  1956  (for  short  "the  Conduct
Rules") . = 

 In  our  view,  a  statutory  provision  casting  disqualification   on
contesting for, or holding, an elective office is not violative  of  Article
25 of the Constitution.

. ..........It  may  be  permissible  for  Muslims  to  enter  into  four
marriages with four women and for anyone whether a Muslim  or  belonging  to
any other community or religion to procreate as many children  as  he  likes
but no religion in India dictates or mandates  as  an  obligation  to  enter
into bigamy or  polygamy  or  to  have  children  more  than  one.  What  is
permitted or not prohibited by  a  religion  does  not  become  a  religious
practice or a positive tenet of a religion. A practice does not acquire  the
sanction of religion simply because it is permitted. Assuming  the  practice
of having more wives than one or procreating more children  than  one  is  a
practice followed by any community or group  of  people,  the  same  can  be
regulated or prohibited by legislation in  the  interest  of  public  order,
morality and health or by any law providing for social  welfare  and  reform
which the impugned legislation clearly does."
 In view of the above, we are unable to hold that the Conduct  Rule  in
any manner violates Article 25 of the Constitution. -2015 S.C. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS