Extra-territorial marriage and penal legislation failed for lack of territorial nexus, while procedural trial rules and accrued prosecution survived repeal.

A provincial or State Legislature cannot extend marriage or penal legislation to a bigamous marriage solemnised wholly outside its territory merely because one spouse was said to be domiciled or resident in Bombay. The court treated domicile as insufficient to supply the territorial nexus needed for extra-territorial operation, so the provision voiding such out-of-State marriages was ultra vires. The associated penal provision, which depended on that invalid reach, could not constitutionally punish or try an offence committed outside Bombay. By contrast, the procedural provision assigning trial to Magistrates was upheld as intra vires, and repeal of the Act did not bar prosecution for an offence allegedly committed while the Act was in force.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 4(b) of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946 could validly declare void a bigamous marriage solemnised outside the State of Bombay when one party was said to be domiciled in Bombay; (ii) whether the State Legislature could, by section 5, create an offence in respect of a marriage contracted outside the State and confer jurisdiction on Bombay courts; (iii) whether section 8, relating to trial of the offence by Magistrates, was within legislative competence; (iv) whether a prosecution could proceed after repeal of the Act when the alleged offence was committed while the Act was in force.

Issue (i): Whether section 4(b) of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946 could validly declare void a bigamous marriage solemnised outside the State of Bombay when one party was said to be domiciled in Bombay.

Analysis: The Act was made by a provincial legislature whose competence under section 99 of the Government of India Act, 1935 was confined to laws for the province, and the concurrent legislative entries relating to marriage and criminal law did not enlarge territorial power beyond the province. A marriage validly contracted in another territory could not be nullified by Bombay merely because one party was described as domiciled in Bombay. The judgment held that domicile, in the relevant sense, was a national concept and not a provincial one, and that residence or permanent residence in Bombay did not supply the necessary territorial nexus to legislate about a marriage contracted elsewhere.

Conclusion: Section 4(b) was ultra vires the Bombay Legislature and could not validly apply to marriages contracted outside the State.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Legislature could, by section 5, create an offence in respect of a marriage contracted outside the State and confer jurisdiction on Bombay courts.

Analysis: The penal provision depended on the validity of section 4, and the judgment treated the crime as local in character. A State Legislature could not extend its criminal law to acts done outside its territory merely because the offender was resident in the State. The territorial nexus urged on the basis of domicile was rejected as insufficient, and the comparative authorities relied on for extra-territorial marital or criminal regulation were treated as inapplicable to a provincial legislature in India.

Conclusion: The State could not constitutionally punish or try a bigamous marriage contracted outside Bombay on the footing adopted by section 5.

Issue (iii): Whether section 8, relating to trial of the offence by Magistrates, was within legislative competence.

Analysis: Section 8 was treated as a procedural provision allocating jurisdiction to courts of competent grade within the province. It did not by itself enlarge the territorial reach of the Act, and the Court agreed that such a provision was intra vires the State Legislature.

Conclusion: Section 8 was valid.

Issue (iv): Whether a prosecution could proceed after repeal of the Act when the alleged offence was committed while the Act was in force.

Analysis: The Court accepted that repeal did not defeat liability for an offence already committed while the law was operative. The mere fact that the complaint was filed after repeal did not extinguish the alleged offence or the State's right to prosecute.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred merely because the Act had been repealed before the complaint was filed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the substantive extra-territorial application of section 4(b) was beyond legislative power, and the appeal by the State therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A provincial or State Legislature cannot, in the absence of territorial nexus, extend marriage or penal legislation to acts wholly committed outside its territory merely on the basis of domicile or residence within the State.

---