LexM.M. MALHOTRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c M.M. MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. OCTOBER 4, 2005 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Military Law: Air Force Act, 1950: Section 19-Termination of service by Central Government-Moral turpitude-Air Force Officer married complainant as per Hindu rites- Complainant lodged a complaint alleging that the said Officer had illicit relation with a woman and had also tortured her brutally-Said Officer was D compulsorily retired from service on the ground that trial by Court Martial was inexpedient and impractical-High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement-Correctness of-Held: Any act of misconduct of an Officer involving moral turpitude and/or amounting to an offence could be dealt with administratively under Ss. 18 and 19 or by way of disciplinary action- However, while dealing with the matter under S. 19 principle of natural justice E as contemplated in R. 16 has to be followed-Jn the instant case, trial by Court Martial neither expedient nor practical and, therefore, order of compulsory retirement justified-Air Force Rules, 1969, R. 16-Regulations for the Air Force, 1964, Para 667 (b). Section 45-Unbecoming conduct-Air Force Officer tortured a woman F brutally-Officer compulsorily retired from service-Correctness of-Held: Use of criminal force against a woman is an act unbecoming of an Officer and is an offence under S. 45-Hence, order of compulsory retirement justified Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: G Section 16-Void and voidable marriages-Legitimacy of children of- Held: legitimacy of the paternity of a child born out of a void marriage is upheld-However, similar protection is not extended to the mother of the child H 1~6 •. M.M. MALHOTRA v. U.0.1. 1027 Words & Phrases: "Misconduct"-Meaning of The appellant was appointed to the permanent commission as a Pilot Officer in the Indian Air Force. The appellant married the complainant A as per Hindu rites. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Chief of B Air Staff alleging that the appellant had illicit relations with a woman and had also tortured her brutally. It was also alleged in the complaint that the appellant had contracted a plural marriage with the said woman. The appellant filed a suit for a declaration that the complaint was not his wife as her spouse was living on the date they started living as husband and C wife. The suit was decreed. The appellant was compulsorily retired from service under Section 19 of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 16 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 as his conduct was unbecoming of an Air Force Officer in terms of Section 45 of the Act. The Chief of Air Staff was also of the opinion that D trial by Court Martial was neither expedient nor practical. The High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It was the complainant who alleged that during the E subsistence of the appellant's marriage with her he had contracted another marriage with a woman. But the fact remains that there is a decision rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction to the effect that the marriage of the complainant was subsisting at the time when the appellant undisputedly married her. Nobody has questioned the correctness of the said decision. [1034-F-G[ F 1.2. The effect of the decree passed is that the marriage with the complainant was void and, therefore, there was no marriage in the eyes of law. That being so, the appellant's subsequent marriage with another woman cannot be said to be a case of plural marriage. To that extent the G appellant is right that the case of "plural marriage" has not been established. [1034-8-D[ 2. While the legislature has considered it advisable to uphold the legitimacy of the paternity of a child born out of a void marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it has not extended a similar H 1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A protection in r~spect of the mother of the child. ' 11036-D-E; 1034-H; 1035-A-Bl Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, AIR (1988) SC 644, relied on. B 3. The appellant's so-called marriage with the complainant was void. Obviously, therefore, he was staying with the complaint who was not his wife as husband and wife. If the marriage with another woman was not a case of plural marriage in view of the subsisting marriage of the complaint then also question has been rightly raised by the respond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.