Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The marriage is valid but is subject to cancellation if contested in court by one of the parties to the marriage. A voidable marriage is contrasted with a void marriage, which is one that is on its face unlawful and therefore legally has no effect, whether or not one of the parties challenges the marriage.
A void marriage is a marriage that is unlawful or invalid under the laws of the jurisdiction where it is entered. A void marriage is invalid from its beginning, and is generally treated under the law as if it never existed and requires no formal action to terminate.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to making divorce easier on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, was introduced in the parliament in 2012. The Bill replaces the words "not earlier than six months" in Section 13B with the words "Upon receipt of a ...
Since 1975, Australian law provides only for void marriages. Before 1975, there were both void and voidable marriages. Today, under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth.) a decree of nullity can only be made if a marriage is void. [22] A marriage is void if: [23] [24] [25] one or both of the parties were already married at the time (i.e. bigamy)
The concept has been codified in California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota and Montana. [2] Case law provides for putative spouse rights in Nebraska, Washington state, Nevada, [2] Texas [3] and Louisiana. Colorado and Montana are the only U.S. states to have both common law marriage and to formally recognize putative spouse status.
The Hindu code bills were several laws passed in the 1950s that aimed to codify and reform Hindu personal law in India, abolishing religious law in favor of a common law code. The Indian National Congress government led by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru successfully implemented the reforms in 1950s.
Henry Sumner Maine first introduced Act III of 1872, which would permit any dissenters to marry whomever they choose under a new civil marriage law. In the final wording, the law sought to legitimize marriages for those willing to renounce their profession of faith altogether ("I do not profess the Hindu, Christian, Jewish, etc. religion").
Allegedly, Raj had misinformed everyone about his social status and religion and Pavani filed a case upon learning the truth. The High Court upheld her plea and said the marriage was void as the HMA postulated only between Hindus; following this, Raj, filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the apex court.