90% OFF ray ban sunglasses tesco for Women & Men!

MelvinOa

Landmark judgement on Marriage Law

Penal Code, S. 362 B   Bigamy   Muslim Marriage contracted during the subsistence of a monogamous marriage   Validity in the second marriage  Marriage Registration Ordinance, Sections 18, 19 (1), 35 (1) , 35 (2) and section 64.

The accused respondent and his first wife the appellant both Roman Catholics were married beneath the Marriage Registration Ordinance. In the subsistence of the first marriage, the accused registered a marriage with one Miss Edirisinghe beneath the Muslim Marriage Ray Ban sunglasses outlet and Divorce Act. The accused was found guilty of the offence of bigamy. His defence was that ahead of his second marriage, both he and Miss Edirisinghe had embraced Islam; and therefore, the second marriage was valid.

(1) Section 18 with the Marriage Registration Ordinance prohibits polygamy and sections 18, 19 (1), 35 (1) and 35 (2) read together show certainly that the Ordinance contemplates simply a monogamous marriage; and the respondent cannot, by a unilateral conversion to Islam, cast aside his antecedent statutory liabilities and obligations suffered by reason of the prior marriage. The rights in the respondent are qualified and restricted through the legal rights of his wife whom he married with regards to the Marriage Registration Ordinance.

(2) The next purported marriage with the respondent during the subsistence of the prior marriage contracted under the Marriage Registration Ordinance is void, notwithstanding the respondent's conversion to Islam. Attorney General v. and Reid v. Attorney General (1964) 65 NLR 97 SC overruled.

1. Attorney General v.

2. Weatherley v. Weatherley (1879) Kotze 71.

3. Niboyet v. Niboyet 4 PD 1 (Court of Appeal).

4. King v. Perumal (1912) 14 NLR 496 (Full Bench).

5. Pasmore yet others v.

6. Reid v. Attorney General (1964) 65 NLR 97 SC.

7. Smt Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani while others (Petitioners) v. Union of India and others (Respondents) AIR 1995 SC 1531.

APPEAL from the High Court, Galle.

Ranjit Abeysuriya, PC with M. Markhani, Priyadharshani Dias and Mrinali Talgodapitiya to the appellant

D. S. Wijesinghe, PC with Jayantha de Almeida Gunaratne, Dhammika Dharmadasa and Upul Ranjan Hewage to the respondent

B. P. Aluvihare, SSC to the Attorney General.

R. K. W. Goonesekera as amicus curiae.

The accused respondent (hereinafter termed as respondent) was in prison for the offence of bigamy (s. 362 (B) from the Penal Code). The charge was that on 6.10.85 he contracted an extra marriage with Kanthika Chitral Saranalatha Edirisinghe whilst his lawful wife Natalie Manel Antoinette Abeysundera was Ray Ban outlet alive. These proceedings were instituted from the Police inside the Magistrate's Court of Galle.

The offence of bigamy as set out in section 362 (B) with the Penal Code reads thus:

"Whoever, using a husband or wife living, marries in any Ray Ban Wayfarer sale case in which such marriage is void by reason of the company's taking place throughout the life of such partner, shall be punished with imprisonment . . ."

The constituents of the offence are (i) before his second marriage the accused already carries a spouse living, (ii) the accused proposes to marry again during the subsistence with the prior marriage, (iii) the next marriage is void by reason of its taking place as the prior valid marriage remains undissolved.

In our case there is no dispute the ingredients (i) and (ii) above have been about by the prosecution. The difficulty in issue is the cheap Ray Ban Wayfarer third ingredient of the offence enumerated above.

The 1st marriage was solemnised whatsoever Saints' Church. Borella on September 27, 1958, (vide marriage license P1). Admittedly, the respondent and his wife (who's the present appellant) were both Roman Catholics. The respondent was an engineer serving in the Colombo Municipal Council. He worked on the Colombo Municipal Council until his retirement in 1975. Thereafter he worked abroad for two main years and upon his resume Sri Lanka joined the "DFCC" in August, 1979. While working at the "DFCC", he created friendship with Miss K. C. S. Edirisinghe. In 1980 the respondent instituted divorces against the present appellant inside the District Court of Colombo. Encounter, however, was dismissed on September 4, 1985 (P2). The respondent did not prefer an appeal from the judgment dismissing his action. On September 26, 1985, he gifted his 'matrimonial home" to Miss K. C. S. Edirisinghe (deed of gift P3).

On Ray Ban outlet online the trial prior to the Magistrate's Court he earned a statement in the dock and asserted that both he and Miss Edirisinghe were transformed into Islam in March 1985. On October 6, 1985, to the second time the respondent marry and it ended up being Miss K. C. S. Edirisinghe, within the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (P4 the certificate of marriage dated 6.10. 85 and P5 the declaration dated 6. 10. 85 by the bridegroom in terms of section 18 (1) in the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act).

As mentioned earlier, the Magistrate convicted the respondent about the charge of bigamy; he was sentenced into a term of Eighteen months rigorous imprisonment suspended for a period of five years plus a fine of Rs. 2,000 have also been imposed. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Provincial High Court of Galle.

His appeal was successful, the conviction and sentence were reserve and he was acquitted. With the leave with this court, the aggrieved party N. Manel A. Abeysundera has preferred the actual appeal.

Ray Ban Sunglasses Sale
Ray Ban outlet store online
Ray Ban outlet

http://www.rboutlet-online.top
http://www.2016rboutlet-online.top
http://www.cheaprboutlet.top

Ray Ban Sunglasses Outlet
Ray Ban outlet online
Ray Ban outlet store