1957 (7) TMI 44 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of certain provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946.
2. Jurisdiction of the State Legislature to declare marriages contracted outside the State as void.
3. Competence of the State Legislature to constitute the contracting of a bigamous marriage outside the State as an offence punishable by the Courts within the State.
4. Interpretation and implication of the term "domicile" in the context of the Act.
5. Applicability of the principle of territorial nexus to the subject matter of marriage and crime.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Certain Provisions of the Act:
The Full Bench was constituted to examine the constitutionality of specific provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946, particularly in relation to marriages contracted outside the State of Bombay. The accused had married a second wife in Bikaner after the Act came into force, leading to his prosecution under the Act. The primary question was whether the State Legislature had the authority to declare such a marriage void and to penalize it.

2. Jurisdiction of the State Legislature:
The Court analyzed whether the State Legislature could declare a marriage void if it was contracted outside the State of Bombay. The Act's Section 4(b) attempted to apply to marriages contracted beyond the State's limits if either party was domiciled in Bombay. The Court emphasized that the State Legislature's jurisdiction is confined to its territorial boundaries and cannot extend beyond them. The principle that a provincial legislature could legislate only within its territorial limits was reiterated, and any attempt to legislate beyond those limits was deemed ultra vires.

3. Competence to Constitute an Offence:
The Court examined whether the State Legislature could make the contracting of a bigamous marriage outside the State an offence punishable by the Courts within the State. It was held that crime is inherently local, and the jurisdiction over a crime belongs to the territory where it is committed. The Court found it untenable to suggest that the Bombay Legislature could punish a resident for an act committed outside its boundaries, thus Section 5 of the Act was also found to be beyond the competence of the State Legislature.

4. Interpretation of "Domicile":
The term "domicile" was scrutinized in the context of the Act. The Court clarified that domicile, in international law, implies a permanent home in a particular country, not within a province or state. It was held that in India, a person can only be domiciled in the country as a whole, not in any specific state or province. The use of "domicile" in the Act was deemed a misnomer, and it was concluded that the mere residence in a state does not confer domicile in the international law sense.

5. Principle of Territorial Nexus:
The Court discussed the principle of territorial nexus, which requires a connection between the subject matter of the legislation and the territory of the legislature. It was found that there was no sufficient territorial nexus between a marriage contracted in Bikaner and the State of Bombay. The argument that domicile of one of the contracting parties in Bombay constituted a sufficient nexus was rejected. The Court reiterated that the competence of the State Legislature is limited to its territorial boundaries and cannot be extended by invoking the concept of domicile.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that Section 4(b) of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946, was ultra vires the Bombay Legislature, as it attempted to legislate beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the accused could not be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act for a marriage contracted outside the State. The appeal by the State was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused. The judgment emphasized the limitations of state legislative powers and the importance of adhering to constitutional boundaries.