Amullya chandra Vs.The State [35 DLR 160 (1983)] In that case, appellant brought a case on appeal against the decision of the assistantsession judge, second court, Mymensingh under section 493 of the Penal Code, 1860sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a thousand taka fine. Prosecutioncase Kalpana Rani, age 17/18 years old, was induced into believing that she was married tothe appellant on the ground that they secretly exchanged garlands and thereby she consentedto cohabit with the appellant and became pregnant. The accused appellant pleaded not guiltyto deceit by saying that various facts were false or fabricated. The learned judges opined thatKalpana Rani was matured enough to understand that various rites i.e. viva-homa and Saptapadi need to be performed which were not performed. Also according to the judges it iscustomarily among Bangladesh Hindu’s of all castes that some relations remain presence andthe bride is made to put on new clause bangles and vermillian mark on forehead. KalpanaRani couldn’t have believed according to the judges that while by mere exchange of garlandsthe accused had become her lawfully married husband. The Court acquitted the appellantfrom the charge of deceit. Criticism: The decision of the High Court, however, can be criticized from various point of view: First , vide Abed Ali Vs. The State [34 DLR 366 (1982)]; Second, no attempt to find out the customary practices; Third , there could have been Gandharva marriage; Fourth , there could have been presumption of marriage.
Posted on: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 22:20:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015