Second marriage against to the service rules and with out intimation and permission - The question raised for consideration relates to validity of order dated 17th June, 2008 removing the appellant from service for proved misconduct of contracting another marriage during existence of the first marriage without permission of the Government in violation of Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 (for short "the Conduct Rules") . = In our view, a statutory provision casting disqualification on contesting for, or holding, an elective office is not violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. . ..........It may be permissible for Muslims to enter into four marriages with four women and for anyone whether a Muslim or belonging to any other community or religion to procreate as many children as he likes but no religion in India dictates or mandates as an obligation to enter into bigamy or polygamy or to have children more than one. What is permitted or not prohibited by a religion does not become a religious practice or a positive tenet of a religion. A practice does not acquire the sanction of religion simply because it is permitted. Assuming the practice of having more wives than one or procreating more children than one is a practice followed by any community or group of people, the same can be regulated or prohibited by legislation in the interest of public order, morality and health or by any law providing for social welfare and reform which the impugned legislation clearly does." In view of the above, we are unable to hold that the Conduct Rule in any manner violates Article 25 of the Constitution. -2015 S.C. msklawreports

Second marriage against to the service rules and with out intimation and permission -The question raised for consideration relates to validity of  order
dated 17th June,  2008  removing  the  appellant  from  service  for  proved
misconduct of contracting another marriage during  existence  of  the  first
marriage without permission of the Government in violation of Rule 29(1)  of
the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules,  1956  (for  short  "the  Conduct
Rules") . = 

 In  our  view,  a  statutory  provision  casting  disqualification   on
contesting for, or holding, an elective office is not violative  of  Article
25 of the Constitution.

. ..........It  may  be  permissible  for  Muslims  to  enter  into  four
marriages with four women and for anyone whether a Muslim  or  belonging  to
any other community or religion to procreate as many children  as  he  likes
but no religion in India dictates or mandates  as  an  obligation  to  enter
into bigamy or  polygamy  or  to  have  children  more  than  one.  What  is
permitted or not prohibited by  a  religion  does  not  become  a  religious
practice or a positive tenet of a religion. A practice does not acquire  the
sanction of religion simply because it is permitted. Assuming  the  practice
of having more wives than one or procreating more children  than  one  is  a
practice followed by any community or group  of  people,  the  same  can  be
regulated or prohibited by legislation in  the  interest  of  public  order,
morality and health or by any law providing for social  welfare  and  reform
which the impugned legislation clearly does."
 In view of the above, we are unable to hold that the Conduct  Rule  in
any manner violates Article 25 of the Constitution. -2015 S.C. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS