The following implores the several aspects of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 with an analytical lens through the prism of several judicial pronouncements.
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is an important landmark in the secularization of the laws in India. While introducing the Bill in the Lok Sabha the Hon’ble Mr. C.C. Biswas stated: “It is an attempt to lay down a uniform territorial law of marriage for the whole of India.”
The Act constitutes the first and the only step taken towards the goal of a uniform civil code envisaged under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution. Alas, in the course of two decades the government has not mustered sufficient courage and political will to take further steps towards that goal. The reasons are not far to seek. The first is surrender of the political process to forces of conservatism and reaction under the pretext of “pragmatic approach” or worse still, ostensible concern for the feelings of minorities. The second is the fear that issues like social justice to women and consequent changes in personal laws will result in loss of votes rather than a gain in votes. No wonder that even modest measures suggested by the Law Commissions in their reports on the Converts’ Marriage Dissolution Act, 1866 and the Christian matrimonial causes have been gathering dust on the shelves.
Unlike the traditional arranged marriages which include two families belonging to same caste or same community, the Act aims at inter alia providing for legalizing inter-religious or inter-caste marriages. The Certificate of registration under the Act has been considered as a general proof of marriage. The Act as stated in the preamble provides a special form of marriage in certain cases, for the registration of such and certain other marriages and for divorce. There have been instances of adults belonging to two different religions marrying with the consent of their families, as per the rituals of either one religion or both. But if they want to register their marriage, it can only be done under the Special Marriage Act. While special marriages are gaining attraction, there are people who prefer to stick to a particular religious marriage law, notwithstanding differences like region or caste.
The major objectives which may be culled out from the Preamble of the Act are:
- a special form of marriage in certain occasions,
- for registration of certain marriages,
- for divorce.
Besides Indians this Act extends to the Indian nationals living in foreign countries. Under this Act the basic requirement for a valid marriage is consent of the parties and does not require any kind of customs, rituals, or ceremonies to be performed as marriage is considered as a civil contract under this Act. Any kind of caste, community or religious differences cannot terminate their union. Parties intending to marry irrespective of the faith they follow may be a Hindu, Sikh, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jain or Parsi can perform their marriage under this Act. Thus, the Special Marriage Act 1954 applies to all persons of all religions. This legislation permits parties from all religions, caste, or community to marry. In case if the parties go for divorce, it should be governed by the Special Marriage Act 1954. The Act in contrast to other personal marriage laws, allows marriage without converting to the partner ‘s religion. The Act provides for solemnization of special marriages, registration thereof, consequences of marriage under the Act, restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation and nullity of marriage and divorce. It also provides for authority of Courts and procedure to be followed.
In Robin v. Jasbir Kaur the husband is a Christian whereas the wife is a Sikh and the marriage between them took place as per Hindu rites. The question was whether the marriage is valid for the purposes of granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. It was held that a Hindu can marry a Christian under the Special Marriage Act. Accordingly, such a marriage cannot be held to be void on the ground that it was not performed according to the provisions of Section 6 the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. The High Court ruled that it cannot be held that the marriage between the husband and the wife, who are Hindu and Christian respectively, is not valid for purposes of granting the relief u/s 125 CrPC. The Court took a lenient view in order to enforce the welfare provision under Section 125 CrPC.
The Special Marriage Act lays down some conditions on the parties to be eligible for the marriage. Section 4 of the Act provides for the conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages. A marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the marriage the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: —
(a) neither party has a spouse living.
(b) neither party—(i) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (ii) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or (iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity
(c) the male has completed the age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen years.
(d) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship.
The proviso to Section 4 of the Act deals with the prohibited degrees of relationship. It reads: Provided that where a custom governing at least one of the parties permits of a marriage between them, such marriage may be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship; and 4(e) where the marriage is solemnized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, both parties are citizens of India domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends. Therefore, it was held that there is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. The boy and girl to the marriage should not fall under any prohibited relationship.
In respect of prohibited degrees, the scenario becomes completely different with respect to the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Act placed all first cousins either of paternal and maternal or of parallel and cross in the category of prohibited marital relationship. The Act does not place any second cousin in its two lists of prohibited degrees. It gives relaxation for this provided that custom governing one of the parties permits. But whereas under Muslim personal Law all first cousins both on the paternal and maternal sides are outside the purview of prohibited degrees in marriage and marriage between the first cousins is allowed. Also, under Christian law marriage with a cousin may be permitted by a special dispensation by the Church. Thus, it ends up in a confusion that if the expression ―custom‖ as defined in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 would include also personal law of the parties or not? Even if the answer is yes, the condition of recognition by the State Government through a gazette notification should be satisfied.
The Act ignores discrimination prevailing among different Indian Communities. One such instance is under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 due to a restriction known as Sapinda relationship. But, the Special Marriage Act, 1954 does not place any second cousin in its two lists of prohibited degrees in marriage. So, if a Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, or Jain wants to marry a second cousin he can do so under the SM Act, though the personal law does not permit. Also, if a Muslim wants to marry a first cousin, he cannot do so under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 though the Muslim personal law permits such a marriage. The couple should have attained a minimum age of 21 years and 18 years, respectively. The parties for the special marriage should be of sound mind capable of giving a valid consent. The marriage between the couple should be monogamous at the time of the marriage i.e., they should be either unmarried or divorced or should not have a spouse living at the time of the marriage.
Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides for a 30 days notice of intended marriage. There is an opinion that the notice period may either be reduced or waived contemplating discretion to be exercised by the Courts. Though this period is for checking the bigamy of either of the parties it would leave a space for the community or caste people to harass the couple. Undoubtedly, these days the couple would go for a special form of marriage under this Act under two circumstances. It may be either the parents are against their love and or they are of different religion or caste. At this point this period of thirty days gives a chance for the parents or the community or religion people to harass the couple. This Act came into force, at a time where it was expected to stand as a legal protector of interests of the couple who are getting married under this Act but this period specified under this section made them find their own enemy to surrender them. if any boy or girl who is a major trying to undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the parents and other relatives try in all respects to eschew that and the couple are generally harassed or subjected to threats and mostly with acts of violence often ending their lives. The time gap of 30 days in this section may in a way vitiate the purpose for which it was laid down in reality might spoil the very situation of conducting the marriage and might land the couple in trouble.
In Pranav Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT. of Delhi & Anr, the first and the second petitioners are citizens of India. They are permanent residents of Delhi. The both being of marriageable age as required under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act intend to be married approached the office of the Registrar of Marriages and obtained the necessary forms. They were informed of the procedure whereby a copy of the “Notice of Intended Marriage” (as required under section 5 of the Act) would be displayed on the Notice Board of the Registrar‘s office for information to the public at large and for inviting objections. They were also told that another copy of the “Notice of Intended Marriage” (as required under section 5 of the Act) would be sent at the respective addresses of the parties and a notice may also be sent through the S.H.O. of the police station of the concerned jurisdiction for the purpose of verification of the residential address. The petitioners challenge the procedure adopted as being arbitrary and illegal.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat observed:
“…. the Special Marriage Act was enacted to enable a special form of marriage for any Indian national, professing different faiths, or desiring a civil form of marriage. The unwarranted disclosure of matrimonial plans by two adults entitled to solemnize it may, in certain situations, jeopardize the marriage itself. In certain instances, it may even endanger the life or limb of one at the other party due to parental interference.‖ …….It becomes clear on a textual reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and the information procured from the website of the Govt. of Delhi that no requirement of posting of notice to applicants’ addresses or service through the SHO, or visit by him is prescribed in either the Act or the website.”
The law only requires notice to be published by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous place in the office of the Marriage Officer. But, the Marriage office copy of the “Notice of Intended Marriage” would be sent at the respective addresses of the parties and a notice may also be sent through the S.H.O. of the police station of the concerned jurisdiction for the purpose of verification of the residential address. The Court opined that the petitioner ‘s concerns and apprehensions were justified. It was ruled that absent any legal compulsion – as is the position – for sending notices to residential addresses in case of solemnization of the marriage, in terms of Sections 4 and 5, their dispatch can well amount to breach of the right to privacy, which every individual is entitled to.
Announcement of Marriage
According to Section 6 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 it is the duty of the Marriage Officer to display a copy of the announcement of the marriage in the office at some discernible place. Also, if either of the parties is not a permanent resident of the district in which they move the court for marriage, the marriage officer of the concerned court has to inform the court in the district in which the party is a permanent resident so that later on the announcement of intended marriage would be displayed at a perceptible place in that office.
Objection to Marriage
Section 7 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides for Objection to marriage– It says that the marriage is solemnized only after a period of one month provided that no objection is raised. According to this section it is very easy to raise objections for special marriages. On an objection to the marriage the marriage officer goes into an inquiry into the matter with the postponement of the solemnization of the marriage. If this objection is upheld either part can appeal to the district court. From the date of the notification of marriage in the court, this drawn-out procedure takes more than three months within which the marriage has to be solemnized. Failing so, the marriage officer should not solemnize the marriage until the parties have to come up with a fresh application to the marriage as described in Section 14 of Special Marriage Act.
Section 11 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 says that three witnesses are required for the solemnization of marriage, this makes things more complicated, where getting three witnesses would be difficult to the couple as they are getting married against the wish of their parents and people would not come forward to be a witness, also it gives a chance to trace the identity of the couple. Yet, it may be noted that a plea of hardship or inconvenience can interpret a statutory provision in a manner inconsistent with its expressed language.
The Apex Court in Eastland Combines, Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore held that merely because a law causes hardship it cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to defeat its object. Courts are not concerned with the legislative policy and with its results, whether injurious or otherwise by giving effect to the language used. The Supreme Court in Morvi Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Union of India held that a plea of inconveniences and hardship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure. It is trite law, where the meaning of the statute is clear and explicit, but if any hardship or inconvenience is felt, it is for the Parliament to take appropriate steps to amend the law and not for the Courts to legislate under the guise of interpretation.
In Reynold Rajamani & Anr v. Union of India, the appellants were husband and wife belonging to the Roman Catholic Community. They were married under section 27 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872. They filed a joint petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by mutual consent in the District Court. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act could not be availed of; Followed by and the High Court. On appeal before the Supreme Court they applied for permission to amend the joint petition to enable them to rely upon Section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 read with Section 1(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 of England. The amendment was allowed, and the appellants filed an amended joint petition in the trial court. But the Trial Court and the High Court have dismissed the petitions. In appeal the Supreme Court held that assuming that the marriage in this case could have been registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, inasmuch as it was solemnised in 1967 it was open to the parties to avail of that Act instead of having resort to the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not open to the appellants to complain of the disadvantage now suffered by them.
It may be noted that obviously, the couple could not get divorce even by mutual consent due to technicalities. It is obvious that they could not continue to lead a marital life living together. It may be realized that the decision of the court cannot obviously make them live together. The Apex Court could have used its inherent power, to allow the parties to get separated, setting right the discrepancy among the marriage laws. The Love and affection between the couple is important regardless of the faith they believe in. The government has tried to its utmost level in making sure that the couple as wished would be safe under the shelter of the Special marriage Act and it would protect their legal interests.
In Jaya Lakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho, Jayalakshmi and Joseph got married as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954. After the birth of a female child differences have arisen culminating into filing an application for dissolution of their marriage entering into an agreement. They had settled other issues amicably relating to their properties and custody of the child etc. in the agreement. The joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed in the Family Court under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Family Court granted the decree of divorce. But the husband filed a petition for the transfer of a flat as part of their agreement for the divorce by mutual consent as the Divorce order was silent about the transfer of the flat. The Family Court passed an order amending the decree inserted 11 clauses of the agreement in the modified order invoking its power under Section 152 CPC. The wife has opposed the same and ultimately the matter came up before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court held: ―
” ….in regard to the transfer of the flat, which seems to be the bone of contention, on payment of Rs.1,70,000/- by the husband-respondent to the wife. …. Undisputedly the amount has not been paid to the wife. The payment was ever offered or in time, if at all, is a disputed question between the parties which need not be gone into in these proceedings. ….. The main part of the agreement related to divorce by mutual consent as it had become impossible for the couple to live together. This fact alone finds mention in the decree passed by the family court dated 7.3.1992. All that we mean to indicate is that there may be other possible reasons for the family court for not incorporating the terms and conditions of the agreement in the decree, or the reason as indicated by the husband-respondent in Paragraph 3 of his application for modification of the decree itself. In the above background and looking to the prayers made by the respondent-husband for granting mandatory injunction in our view the application for rectification of decree was totally misconceived and was only liable to be dismissed”
In Rajesh Burmann v. Mitul Chatterjee, the respondent-wife has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and for a decree of divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, in the Court of District Judge, Alipore, West Bengal. The trial Court directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.3,06,181/- for medical expenses of the wife as the wife had undergone two surgical operations. The appellant-husband moved the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court observed that the trial Judge did not commit any error of law or of authority in ordering the husband to pay the wife medical reimbursement. Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court by the husband. The wife contended that she was pushed by her husband from the staircase. His intention was to cause such injuries which may result in her death. Fortunately, however, she survived. The Apex court categorically maintained that reading the scheme of the Act, it is clear that a wife is entitled to `maintenance and support’. The Apex Court further clarified that apart from the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the two expressions, `maintenance’ and `support’ in the Act of 1954 ( Special Marriage Act, Sections 36 and 37 ) are comprehensive and of wide amplitude and they would take within their sweep medical expenses. The Apex Court held that the wife was entitled to medical expenses granted in her favour by the Courts below.
The Karnataka High Court in Mr Michael Gerard Ferris v. Mrs Svetlana Alexandrovna, has considered enhancement of maintenance under the Special Marriage Act and has dismissed the petition made for reduction of maintenance amount granted by the lower Court. It was the case of the petitioner that she needs additional amounts towards medical expenses and educational expenses of the child. She is not employed and that she does not have any other source of income. Admittedly, the husband is specialized in Commercial law and International Finance. He was being highly qualified, employed and resident of UAE, the Family Court has concluded enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.30,000/ to Rs.50,000/- The Karnataka High Court has approved the Family Court ‘s decision.
Duties of Marriage Office
The Marriage Officer on receipt of the application filed under Section 15 of the Act, has to give a public notice in such manner as may be prescribed under the rules. The Marriage Officer is duty bound to give 30 days for filing objections. The Marriage Officer has to hear the objections received within the time stipulated and only if all the conditions mentioned in Section 15 are satisfied, he shall enter the Certificate of Marriage in the Marriage Certificate Book, in the form specified in the fifth Schedule. Certificate of Marriage has to be signed by the parties to the marriage and three witnesses.
The Marriage Officer while taking a decision under Section 16 read with Rule 7 and 6(b) is exercising a quasi-judicial function. Rule obliges the Marriage Officer to record in his own handwriting the evidence and his decision on the objection and the reasons therefor. On being satisfied that all the conditions mentioned in Section 15 are fulfilled he shall enter a Certificate of Marriage in the Form specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Act and such form shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and three witnesses. The manner in which the Marriage Officer, husband and wife and three witnesses have to sign the certificate of marriage and the mode in which declaration has to be made by the parties have been dealt with in the statutory form, prescribed in the fifth schedule to the Act. A declaration, that a ceremony of marriage has been performed between the parties and that they have been living together as husband and wife since the time of marriage and that in accordance with their desire to have their marriage registered under the Act, on a particular date, has to be made jointly by the husband and wife in the presence of the Marriage Officer and three witnesses.
In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, the Apex Court held that unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due from, it cannot be said to be ‘solemnized’. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married, will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established customs. In Joyita Saha v. Rajesh Kumar Pandey court hold that no marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized according to the Hindu rites or otherwise at any place and no marriage can be deemed to have been solemnized under the ‘Special Marriage Act’ between the parties to this appeal also as there was no proof or record of registration. Since there is no procedure for solemnization of marriage and no provision for compulsory registration of a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 many a time innocent parties do not get justice and their rights. There is already a great confusion and chaos in the marriage laws and in addition to that media and visual media also created confusion regarding the procedure of marriage and in addition to it created an impression that exchange of garlands or tying of thali or mangalsutra or applying sindoor constitutes marriage. This confusion coupled with non – registration has landed many women in a relationship where they have neither right under law non recognition of status as wife in society.
In divorce or bigamy proceedings can admit or deny the first or second marriage depending upon his whim and fancy. This puts the women, who are denied the status, in a vulnerable position. In A.N. Mukherjee v. State, the court held that due performance of necessary ceremonies of marriage is essential for the prosecution of bigamy. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, which was a decision on Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, bigamy, held that even an admission of marriage by an accused is no evidence of marriage for the purpose of proving an offence of bigamy or adultery as the witnesses have not proved that the essential ceremonies had been performed.
In Kangavalli v. Saroja the paternity of children born out of a void marriage was challenged. The court said that compulsory registration is necessary as it will check the fraudulent marriages and would also establish the paternity of children. As observed by the court, ‘if there is a certificate of registration of marriage between the child’s mother and father which though may not validate the marriage which is void but will at least bear testimony to identify the child’s biological parents.
The Apex Court has highlighted the necessity of registering all marriages of Indian citizens belonging to various religions in their respective States immediately after the solemnization of the marriage in its judgment in Seema v. Ashwani Kumar. The court has issued directions that the marriage of all persons who are citizens of India belonging to various religions should be made compulsory registrable in their respective states where the marriage is solemnized. If the marriage is registered the dispute concerning solemnization of marriage can be avoided, it will protect women’s right relating to marriage to a great extent, it will have great evidentiary value in the matters of custody of children, rights of children and the age of the parties to the marriage.
The compulsory registration of marriage would check child marriages or non – age marriages, bigamous marriages, and fraudulent marriages. Registration must be made compulsory to avoid alleged marriages and to prove status of women and the legitimacy of children born out of that wedlock. Because of non – registration of marriage, a woman who has given herself physically, emotionally, and otherwise gains nothing but stands to lose everything if the marriage is denied by the men. The children born out of the alleged wedlock also go through the mental trauma because of their doubt on his paternity. This assault on children’s sensibilities can be easily avoided if there is a certificate of registration of marriage between his mother and father.
Marriage is viewed as a holy organization in India. It is a fundamental piece of our way of life. India is a various nation and subsequently has individuals from various religions and societies, dwelling here. We know about the degree of impact that rank and religion have in our country.is still thought about an unthinkable in numerous spots in our nation. India takes after an exceptionally unbending structure of the position framework. Individuals are required to wed inside their position and whoever weds out of their station and challenges the customary hindrances are avoided in the general public.
There are various respect killings revealed ordinary and tragically, they demonstrate pride in doing as such. Accordingly, there came a grave requirement for a law to defend the interests of those individuals who transcended these station and religious partitions, to wed for affection. So, the parliament authorizes the Special Marriage Act, 1954 individuals of India and every single Indian national in outside nations, regardless of the rank and religion. The special feature of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is that any marriage solemnized in some other shape under some other law, Indian or non-native, between any two people can be enlisted under the Act.
Q & A
- What is the Special Marriage Act?
It is an attempt to lay down a uniform territorial law of marriage for the whole of India. It is an important landmark in the secularization of the laws in India. An Act to provide a special form of marriage in certain cases, for the registration of such and certain other marriages and for divorce.
- Who can marry under this Act?
This Act covers marriages among Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists. This act applies to every state of India, except the state of Jammu & Kashmir. This Act extends not only to the Indian citizens belonging to different castes and religions but also to the Indian nationals living abroad.
- What are the essentials for marriage under this Act?
- Neither party has a spouse living.
- neither party—(i) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (ii) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or (iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity
- The male has completed the age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen years.
- the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship.
4. When can divorce be given?
The parties cannot petition for divorce to the District court unless and until one year has expired from the date of their marriage as registered in the marriage books. But, in cases where the court is of the opinion that the petitioner has suffered exceptional hardships or the respondent has shown exceptional depravity on their part, a petition for divorce would be maintained, but if any misrepresentation is found on the part of the petitioner to apply for divorce before the expiry of 1 year, the court may if any order has been passed, state the order to take effect only after the expiry of 1 year, as mentioned in sec. 29 of the Act.
- What about succession rights?
Succession to property of persons married under this act or any marriage registered under this act and that of their children will be governed under the Indian Succession Act. But, if the parties to the marriage belong to Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Jain religions, then the succession to their property will be governed under the Hindu succession Act.
 Parliamentary Debates, House of the People, 7797 Pt. II (1954).
 K. Subba Rao, Foreword in Devadason, Christian l.aw in India, (1974).
 Lata Singh v. State of UP, AIR 2006 SC 2522.
 Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, AIR 2006 S.C 1158.
 Rajesh Burmann v. Mitul Chatterjee, AIR 2009 SC 651.
 Robin v Jasbir Kaur, Crl. Misc. No. M-25780 of 2015.
 Robin v Jasbir Kaur, Crl. Misc. No. M-25780 of 2015.
 Lata Singh v. State of UP, AIR 2006 SC 2522.
 Pranav Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT. of Delhi & Anr, WP(C) No.748 of 2009.
 Easland Combines, Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, 2003 (1) SCALE 123.
 Morvi Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 1954.
 Reynold Rajamani & Anr v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1261.
 Jaya Lakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho, (2001) 4 SCC 181.
 Rajesh Burmann v. Mitul Chatterjee, 2008 (14) SCALE 372.
 Mr Michael Gerard Ferris v. Mrs Svetlana Alexandrovna, W.P.No.51436 OF 2017.
 Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1564.
 Joyita Saha v. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, AIR 1999 Cal 109.
 A.N. Mukherjee v. State, AIR 1969 All 489.
 Smt Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, AIR 1971 SC 1153.
 Kangavalli v. Saroja, AIR 2002 Mad 76.
 Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, AIR 2006 SC 1158.