Skip to content


Benodini Howladar and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Cal480
AppellantBenodini Howladar and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- .....admitted that what was necessary was that the giving away of the bride should be with the knowledge and consent of the legal guardian and the evidence of the mother of the bride would go to show that the giving away of the bride was with the knowledge and consent of the bride's father; she apparently had seen the father of the bride in jail and had discussed the matter with him. she also gave her own consent to the marriage.4. we see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. the rule is accordingly discharged.
Judgment:

1. This was a Rule granted by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Chakravarti and Mr. Justice Roy on the District Magistrate of Backergunj to show cause why the conviction of and the sentences passed on the petitioners under Section 494, and Section 494 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the grounds set forth in the petition.

2. It would appear that Peary, Petitioner No. 2, has been convicted of bigamy in marrying one Benodini Howladar, Petitioner No. 1, on the ground that she had already been married to one Jogeswar Kirtonia who was still alive.

3. The only ground which has been urged in support of this Rule is that the mother cannot make a gift of the bride to the bridegroom. It would appear that at the time when the first marriage took place the father of the bride for some reason or other was in jail and was unable to be present and personally to give away the bride. It is, however, admitted that what was necessary was that the giving away of the bride should be with the knowledge and consent of the legal guardian and the evidence of the mother of the bride would go to show that the giving away of the bride was with the knowledge and consent of the bride's father; she apparently had seen the father of the bride in jail and had discussed the matter with him. She also gave her own consent to the marriage.

4. We see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. The Rule is accordingly discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //