UG-CLAT LEGAL REASONING QUIZ 6

Chapter VIII of the IPC deals with the offence against The Public Tranquillity; which states from sec. 141-160.  Section 149 of the IPC deals with the Common object as, If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such as the member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. The common object of the unlawful assembly in question depends firstly on whether such object can be classified as one of those described in section 141, IPC. Secondly, such common object need not be the product of prior concert but may form on the spur of the moment.

Section 141 of the IPC states— An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—

First.— To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second.— To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third.—  To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

Fifth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

Thus, there are five types of unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons with one or more of the above five objects becomes an unlawful assembly. There is no question of common intention in section 149. Thus every person who is engaged in prosecuting the same object, although he had no intention to commit the offence, will be guilty of an offence which fulfills or tends to fulfill the object which he is himself engaged in prosecuting in the circumstances mentioned in the section. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in section 141. When common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of section 149; Dara Singh v State of Bihar, 2005 SCC (Cri) 127. Section 143 states ‘Punishment’ - Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

The minimum number of persons required under section 141 of IPC for an unlawful assembly is …….

Chapter VIII of the IPC deals with the offence againstThe Public Tranquillity; which states from sec. 141-160. Section 149of the IPC deals with the Common object as, If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such as the member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. The common object of the unlawful assembly in question dependsfirstlyon whether such object can be classified as one of those described in section 141, IPC.Secondly,such common object need not be the product of prior concert but may form on the spur of the moment.

Section 141of the IPC states— An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if thecommon objectof the persons composing that assembly is—

First.— To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second.— To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third.—  To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

Fifth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

Thus, there are five types of unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons with one or more of the above five objects becomes an unlawful assembly. There is no question of common intention in section 149. Thus every person who is engaged in prosecuting the same object, although he had no intention to commit the offence, will be guilty of an offence which fulfills or tends to fulfill the object which he is himself engaged in prosecuting in the circumstances mentioned in the section. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in section 141. When common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of section 149;Dara Singh v State of Bihar, 2005 SCC (Cri) 127. Section 143states ‘Punishment’ - Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Chapter VIII of the IPC deals with the offence againstThe Public Tranquillity; which states from sec. 141-160. Section 149of the IPC deals with the Common object as, If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such as the member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. The common object of the unlawful assembly in question dependsfirstlyon whether such object can be classified as one of those described in section 141, IPC.Secondly,such common object need not be the product of prior concert but may form on the spur of the moment.

Section 141of the IPC states— An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if thecommon objectof the persons composing that assembly is—

First.— To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second.— To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third.—  To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

Fifth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

Thus, there are five types of unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons with one or more of the above five objects becomes an unlawful assembly. There is no question of common intention in section 149. Thus every person who is engaged in prosecuting the same object, although he had no intention to commit the offence, will be guilty of an offence which fulfills or tends to fulfill the object which he is himself engaged in prosecuting in the circumstances mentioned in the section. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in section 141. When common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of section 149;Dara Singh v State of Bihar, 2005 SCC (Cri) 127. Section 143states ‘Punishment’ - Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Chapter VIII of the IPC deals with the offence againstThe Public Tranquillity; which states from sec. 141-160. Section 149of the IPC deals with the Common object as, If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such as the member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. The common object of the unlawful assembly in question dependsfirstlyon whether such object can be classified as one of those described in section 141, IPC.Secondly,such common object need not be the product of prior concert but may form on the spur of the moment.

Section 141of the IPC states— An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if thecommon objectof the persons composing that assembly is—

First.— To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second.— To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third.—  To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

Fifth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

Thus, there are five types of unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons with one or more of the above five objects becomes an unlawful assembly. There is no question of common intention in section 149. Thus every person who is engaged in prosecuting the same object, although he had no intention to commit the offence, will be guilty of an offence which fulfills or tends to fulfill the object which he is himself engaged in prosecuting in the circumstances mentioned in the section. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in section 141. When common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of section 149;Dara Singh v State of Bihar, 2005 SCC (Cri) 127. Section 143states ‘Punishment’ - Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Chapter VIII of the IPC deals with the offence against The Public Tranquillity; which states from sec. 141-160.  Section 149 of the IPC deals with the Common object as, If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such as the member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. The common object of the unlawful assembly in question depends firstly on whether such object can be classified as one of those described in section 141, IPC. Secondly, such common object need not be the product of prior concert but may form on the spur of the moment.

Section 141 of the IPC states— An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—

First.— To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second.— To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third.—  To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

Fifth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

Thus, there are five types of unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons with one or more of the above five objects becomes an unlawful assembly. There is no question of common intention in section 149. Thus every person who is engaged in prosecuting the same object, although he had no intention to commit the offence, will be guilty of an offence which fulfills or tends to fulfill the object which he is himself engaged in prosecuting in the circumstances mentioned in the section. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in section 141. When common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of section 149; Dara Singh v State of Bihar, 2005 SCC (Cri) 127. Section 143 states ‘Punishment’ - Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

For the application of section 149 of IPC

According to the Vedas, a marriage is, “the union of flesh with flesh and bone with bone”. A marriage tie is a tie which can never be broken and it is a relation established from birth to birth according to ancient Hindu Law. Some Smritikars have been of the view that even death cannot break the relation of wife and husband which is sacred and religious. In other words, Marriages are said to be the strongest bond that keeps a couple committed and devoted towards each other in a marriage. Many times, due to several unfortunate scenarios when a marriage doesn't seem to be working well, it’s better for the spouses to get separated. In India, the law provides two ways to get divorced – ‘Mutual consent’ and ‘Contested’ divorce. 

Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, provides- “Divorce by mutual consent. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made, not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.”

In Sureshta Devi v Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1904, it was observed that the period of living separately for one year must be immediately preceding the presentation of petition. The expression ‘living separately’ connotes to our mind not living like husband and wife. It has no reference to the place of living. The parties may live under the same roof and yet they may not be living as husband and wife. The parties should have no desire to perform marital obligations. The period of six to eighteen months’ time is given in divorce by mutual consent as to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends. Mutual consent should continue till the divorce decree is passed. The court should be satisfied about the bona fide and consent of the parties. If there is no consent at the time of enquiry, the court gets no jurisdiction to make a decree for divorce. If the court is held to have the power to make a decree solely based on the initial petition, it negates the whole idea of mutuality. There can be unilateral withdrawal of consent. It was held that, since consent of the wife was obtained by fraud and wife was not willing to consent, there could be unilateral withdrawal of consent.

Before filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent, for how long should the parties live separately?

According to the Vedas, a marriage is, “the union of flesh with flesh and bone with bone”. A marriage tie is a tie which can never be broken and it is a relation established from birth to birth according to ancient Hindu Law. Some Smritikars have been of the view that even death cannot break the relation of wife and husband which is sacred and religious. In other words, Marriages are said to be the strongest bond that keeps a couple committed and devoted towards each other in a marriage. Many times, due to several unfortunate scenarios when a marriage doesn't seem to be working well, it’s better for the spouses to get separated. In India, the law provides two ways to get divorced – ‘Mutual consent’ and ‘Contested’ divorce. 

Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, provides- “Divorce by mutual consent. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. 

(2) On the motion of both the parties made, not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.” 

In Sureshta Devi v Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1904, it was observed that the period of living separately for one year must be immediately preceding the presentation of petition. The expression ‘living separately’ connotes to our mind not living like husband and wife. It has no reference to the place of living. The parties may live under the same roof and yet they may not be living as husband and wife. The parties should have no desire to perform marital obligations. The period of six to eighteen months’ time is given in divorce by mutual consent as to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends. Mutual consent should continue till the divorce decree is passed. The court should be satisfied about the bona fide and consent of the parties. If there is no consent at the time of enquiry, the court gets no jurisdiction to make a decree for divorce. If the court is held to have the power to make a decree solely based on the initial petition, it negates the whole idea of mutuality. There can be unilateral withdrawal of consent. It was held that, since consent of the wife was obtained by fraud and wife was not willing to consent, there could be unilateral withdrawal of consent.

In the petition for divorce by mutual consent, the consent

According to the Vedas, a marriage is, “the union of flesh with flesh and bone with bone”. A marriage tie is a tie which can never be broken and it is a relation established from birth to birth according to ancient Hindu Law. Some Smritikars have been of the view that even death cannot break the relation of wife and husband which is sacred and religious. In other words, Marriages are said to be the strongest bond that keeps a couple committed and devoted towards each other in a marriage. Many times, due to several unfortunate scenarios when a marriage doesn't seem to be working well, it’s better for the spouses to get separated. In India, the law provides two ways to get divorced – ‘Mutual consent’ and ‘Contested’ divorce. 

Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, provides- “Divorce by mutual consent. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. 

(2) On the motion of both the parties made, not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.” 

In Sureshta Devi v Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1904, it was observed that the period of living separately for one year must be immediately preceding the presentation of petition. The expression ‘living separately’ connotes to our mind not living like husband and wife. It has no reference to the place of living. The parties may live under the same roof and yet they may not be living as husband and wife. The parties should have no desire to perform marital obligations. The period of six to eighteen months’ time is given in divorce by mutual consent as to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends. Mutual consent should continue till the divorce decree is passed. The court should be satisfied about the bona fide and consent of the parties. If there is no consent at the time of enquiry, the court gets no jurisdiction to make a decree for divorce. If the court is held to have the power to make a decree solely based on the initial petition, it negates the whole idea of mutuality. There can be unilateral withdrawal of consent. It was held that, since consent of the wife was obtained by fraud and wife was not willing to consent, there could be unilateral withdrawal of consent.

The expression ‘living separately’ under section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 refers to

According to the Vedas, a marriage is, “the union of flesh with flesh and bone with bone”. A marriage tie is a tie which can never be broken and it is a relation established from birth to birth according to ancient Hindu Law. Some Smritikars have been of the view that even death cannot break the relation of wife and husband which is sacred and religious. In other words, Marriages are said to be the strongest bond that keeps a couple committed and devoted towards each other in a marriage. Many times, due to several unfortunate scenarios when a marriage doesn't seem to be working well, it’s better for the spouses to get separated. In India, the law provides two ways to get divorced – ‘Mutual consent’ and ‘Contested’ divorce. 

Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, provides- “Divorce by mutual consent. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. 

(2) On the motion of both the parties made, not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.” 

In Sureshta Devi v Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1904, it was observed that the period of living separately for one year must be immediately preceding the presentation of petition. The expression ‘living separately’ connotes to our mind not living like husband and wife. It has no reference to the place of living. The parties may live under the same roof and yet they may not be living as husband and wife. The parties should have no desire to perform marital obligations. The period of six to eighteen months’ time is given in divorce by mutual consent as to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends. Mutual consent should continue till the divorce decree is passed. The court should be satisfied about the bona fide and consent of the parties. If there is no consent at the time of enquiry, the court gets no jurisdiction to make a decree for divorce. If the court is held to have the power to make a decree solely based on the initial petition, it negates the whole idea of mutuality. There can be unilateral withdrawal of consent. It was held that, since consent of the wife was obtained by fraud and wife was not willing to consent, there could be unilateral withdrawal of consent.

How much minimum time is given in divorce by mutual consent as to give time and opportunity to the parties?

According to the Vedas, a marriage is, “the union of flesh with flesh and bone with bone”. A marriage tie is a tie which can never be broken and it is a relation established from birth to birth according to ancient Hindu Law. Some Smritikars have been of the view that even death cannot break the relation of wife and husband which is sacred and religious. In other words, Marriages are said to be the strongest bond that keeps a couple committed and devoted towards each other in a marriage. Many times, due to several unfortunate scenarios when a marriage doesn't seem to be working well, it’s better for the spouses to get separated. In India, the law provides two ways to get divorced – ‘Mutual consent’ and ‘Contested’ divorce. 

Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, provides- “Divorce by mutual consent. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made, not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.” 

In Sureshta Devi v Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1904, it was observed that the period of living separately for one year must be immediately preceding the presentation of petition. The expression ‘living separately’ connotes to our mind not living like husband and wife. It has no reference to the place of living. The parties may live under the same roof and yet they may not be living as husband and wife. The parties should have no desire to perform marital obligations. The period of six to eighteen months’ time is given in divorce by mutual consent as to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends. Mutual consent should continue till the divorce decree is passed. The court should be satisfied about the bona fide and consent of the parties. If there is no consent at the time of enquiry, the court gets no jurisdiction to make a decree for divorce. If the court is held to have the power to make a decree solely based on the initial petition, it negates the whole idea of mutuality. There can be unilateral withdrawal of consent. It was held that, since consent of the wife was obtained by fraud and wife was not willing to consent, there could be unilateral withdrawal of consent.

A petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district Court by -