LexSMT. PARAYANKANDIYAL ERA VATH KANAPRAVAN KALLIANI AMMA AND ORS. versus K. DEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
SMT. PARAYANKANDIYAL ERA VATH KANAPRAVAN
A
KALLIANI AMMA AND ORS.
v.
K. DEVI AND ORS.
APRIL 26, 1996
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
Hindu law:
Hi11du Maniage Act, 1955: Section 16.
Void maniage-Otildren--Legitimacy of-Second marriage-Co11tract
of--Duri11g subsistence of first marriage-Prior to commencement of
Act-Void under S. 5 of Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932 then in
force-Held : Children bom of void second ma77iage e11titled to inherit share
B
c
in the prope1ties of their parents by operatio11 of amended S. 16.
D
Section 16--Amendment-Legitimacy-Nature of-Pre-amended S.
16--Classified illegitimate children into two groups-Those bom of void
maniages contracted before Act-And those bon1 of void nzarriages con-
tracted after Act came into force-Held: Section 16 violative of Miele 14 of
the Constitutioh.
E
Section 16--Amendment of-Position thereafta-Amendment removed
the mischief and also de/inked S. 11 from S. 16--Hence, amended S. 16 was
constitutionally valid-ft enacted legal fiction whereby illegitimate children
were deemed legitimate-Thereby entitling them to succeed to prope11ies of
their parents.
F
Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932:
Section 5---Polygamy-Void unde1~Act repealed by S. 7(2) of Kera/a
Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975---Effect of-Contract of second
marriage during lifetime of first wife-Prohibition under S. 5 would G
.t
operate-Such second maniage would not be affected by the repeal by virtue
of S. 4 of Kera/a Interpretation a11d General Clauses Act, 1925---Kerala Joint
Hindu Family Sys{em (Abolition) Act, 1975, S. 7(2}-Kerala Interpretation
and General Clauses Act, 1925, S. 4.
Constitution of India, 1950 : Anicle 14 :
1
H
A
B
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
Statute-Constitutionality of-Presumption in favour of-Burden of
proof is on person challenging constitutionali~To show arbitrary dis-
crimination between persons siniilarly circumstanced--Presuniption-Dis-
placing of-By showing discrimination was apparent and manifest-Duty of
Court to look to the statute as a whole to see if classification was valid having
ne.i.us with object sought to be achieved.
Interpretation of Statutes :
Interpretation-Subsidiary rules of-Legal fiction-Purpose of-Parties
between whom it was to operate-To be ascmained by Court to give full effect
C
to legislative intent and to ca1ry the purpoSe to its logical end.
•
D
E
Mischief Rule-Language having more than one meaning-Ap-
plicability of-Rule in Heydon's case-When and how lo be invokecf--Non-
obstanle clause-Operation and interpretation of
RN contracted a second marriage with Appellant No. 1 during the
lifetime of his first wife who was the mother of Respondents 1 to 9, in
contravention of the prohibition of such a second marriage under Section
5 of Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932 which was then in force. The
question before this Court was whether Appellants 2 to 6, who were the
children born of the second marriage, would inherit any share in the
properties l•ft behind by RN after his death.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Section 7(2) of Kerala Joint Hindu Family System
f
(Abolition) Act, 1975 by which the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932
was repealed does not indicate any intention contrary to the provisions
contained in Kerala Interpretation and General Clause Act, 1925 which,
will apply with full vigour on the principle that whenever there is a repeal
of an~ enactment, the consequences indicated in Section 4 would follow,
G
unless there \Vas any saving clause in the repealing enactment or any other
intention was expressed therein. In the case of a simple repeal, there is
hardly any room for the expression of a contrary view. Repeal in the instant
case is a ca>e of repeal simplicitor. Hence, in view of section 4(b) of Kerala
Interpretation and General Clauses Act, the previous operation of Madras
Act will not be affected by the repeal nor will the repeal affect anything
l I duly done or suffered thereunder. So also, a liability incurred under that
·-
-
P.E.K.KALLIANIAMMA v. K DEVI
3
Act will remain unaffe(ted and will not be obliterated by the repeal as A
indicated in Section 4(c). RN had contracted a second marriage, in the
lifetime of .his first \life, when Madras Act was in force, which prohibited
a second marriage and, therefore, the consequences indicated in the Act
that such a marriage would be void would not be affected nor willExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.