KARAN SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Fatehpur, whereby he dismissed an appeal from the decision of a First Class Magistrate. The applicants, Karan Singh, Indrajit Singh and Mt. Paragia were charged under Section 498 Indian Penal Code, for taking or enticing away the wife of one Ahmad Husain with intent that she might have illicit intercourse with another man. The learned Magistrate found all the three accused guilty and sentenced Karan Singh to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 50, Indrajit to a fine of Rs. 25 and Mt. Paragia to a fine of Rs. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the convictions and sentences, and all three accused apply in revision to this Court. A woman named Mt. Bawwa, aged 20 years, was married to one Ahmad Husain, a Mohammadan. Ahmad Husain however did not appreciate his wife, neglected her, and left her. At the time of the alleged offence Mt. Bawwa was living with her father, one Ramzani. Mt. Bawwa met Karan Singh: it was a case of mutual attraction. Further Mt. Bawwa was unhappy, situated as she was, and she made up her mind to leave her father and go and live with Karan Singh. Before she did that however on 4 May 1932 she thought it proper to renounce her religion as a Mahamedan and accept the faith of Karan Singh. She lodged a written application on that day with the secretary of the local branch of the Arya Samaj. In that application she said that she was acting of her own free will without compulsion ; that she hated Islam and loved the principles of the Vedic faith, and that she wished to be converted to the Arya Samaj. On 6 May she left the house of her father accompanied by the three accused and went to Karan Singh's house where she has been living ever since. On 2 August, 1932 Ramzani, the father, filed the present complaint. It is to be noted that from beginning to end no one has ever heard of Ahmad Husain in this matter. He takes not the slightest interest apparently in what his wife does or where she lives.

(2.) IT has been strongly contended by Mr. Sambhu Nath Seth, on behalf of the applicants, that Ahmad Husain could not file a complaint in this matter in that on 2 August, 1932 he was not the husband of Mt. Bawwa. Mt. Bawwa, he contends, had renounced the faith of Islam definitely and clearly on 4 May 1932, and such renunciation according to Mahomedan law, terminated the marriage on that date. He further contends that as Ahmad Husain himself could not file the complaint, the father of the girl could not do it on his behalf. I think there is a good deal to be said for this argument. I do not however need to decide the question for if the law point as to renunciation is sound, and it is established that the marriage was dissolved on 4 May, it is obvious that the three accused on 6 May could not be guilty of enticing or taking away Mt. Bawwa, the wife of Ahmad Husain. IT has been settled by this Court in Amin Beg V/s. Saman (1911) 33 All 90 that a Mohamedan marriage is immediately dissolved on one of the parties to that marriage renouncing the faith of Islam. That Mt. Bawwa renounced the faith of Islam on 4 May is clear. There can be no doubt that the application was not made for the purpose of this case as on 4 May no charge had been made and none was contemplated. She therefore ceased to be the wife of Ahmad Husain on 4 May and so the three accused were at liberty to take her away from the house of her father on 6 without committing an offence under