Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
“From a bare reference to the different provisions of the Act including preamble
thereof it is apparent that Divorce Act purports to amend the law relating to divorce of
persons professing the Christian religion and to confer upon courts which shall
include District Court and the High Court jurisdiction in matrimonial matters. In this
background, unless the Divorce Act recognises the jurisdiction, authority or power of
passed by such Ecclesiastical Tribunal cannot be binding on the courts which have
been recorgnised under the provisions of the Divorce Act to exercise power in respect
settled that when legislature enacts a law even in respect of the personal law of a
group of persons following a particular religion, then such statutory provision shall
prevail and override any personal law, usage or custom prevailing before coming into
From the provisions of the Divorce Act it is clear and apparent that they purport to
prescribe not only the grounds on which a marriage can be dissolved or declared to be
nullity, but also provided the forum which can dissolve or declare the marriage to be
nullity. As already mentioned above, such power has been vested either in the District
Court or the High Court. In this background, there is no scope for any other authority
matrimonial matters which are covered by the provisions of the Divorce Act. The
High Court has rightly pointed out that even in cases where Ecclesiastical Court
purports to grant annulment or divorce the Church authorities would still continue to
be under disability to perform or solemnize a second marriage for any of the parties
until the marriage is dissolved or annulled in accordance with the statutory law in
force.”
In Leelamma v. Dilip Kumar, the learned single Judge did not hold that Canon Law
would supercede the statutory law regarding the marriage or any other matter. On the
other hand, learned Judge has pointed out, in clear terms, that "in the absence of
In Leelamma v. Dilip Kumar, the court has taken the view that fraud envisaged
in Section 19 of the Divorce Act would include an error concerning quality of a
person and that even a representation that the party is a Christian would amount to
fraud if that party was not a Christian by faith. In that case, learned single Judge noted
that there was no "iota of evidence" to show that the husband professed Christian
faith. Hence the learned Judge took the view that wife's consent was obtained by
fraud.
cannot be accepted as the correct exposition of law in this regard. According to us,
the observation in the aforesaid decision that the marriage is liable to be declared null
and void unless the consent signified is a consent recognised in personal law or Canon
marriage between children of two sisters could be declared null and void on the
ground envisaged in Section 19(2) of the Divorce Act. Their Lordships noticed that
the church Court has granted dispensation to the spouses concerned in regard to the
Act or in any other statutory law applicable to Christian community, the Court was
was recognized by the Supreme Court as the law governing the members of that
community. The above is the indication of the limited scope of application of personal
Appeal filed for declaration that marriage between parties null and void. Appellant
contended that they were Hindu and stand in close relation as respondent was son of
her mother's sister. For purpose of marriage they converted into Christians and under
Cannon law their marriage solemnized. It was further contended that at time of
marriage they had not attained age of majority. Supreme Court observed that marriage
of parties governed by Cannon law and not by Hindu Marriage Act. As per Cannon
law marriage between persons so related is valid - age of majority under said law is 16
years for male and 14 years for female. Marriage held valid and appeal dismissed.
In SUJATHA V. JOSE AUGUSTINE, the learned single Judge has held that "a
marriage between a baptised Christian and a person not baptised is void". The said
decision was based on Canon 1086 of Canon Law. But in our view a marriage
between baptised Christian and a person not baptised is not a nullity under
the Divorce Act. Such a marriage, if properly solemnised, would imbibe all attributes
of a valid marriage. Theological faith of one of the parties does not matter in the
Manupatra case note: Petitioner filed a Petition for a decree declaring marriage
between Petitioner and First Respondent as null and void. Whether, there was a valid
marriage between First Respondent and Petitioner. Held, by birth Petitioner was a
Hindu belonging to Nair Community. She lived under case custody of her mother till
alleged baptism and marriage. However, First Respondent was a Latin Catholic and
and First Respondent was from Holy Family Church and was according to rites and
Respondent was void being a marriage between a baptised Christian and a not
baptised non-Christian. Hence, it was declared that marriage between Petitioner and
Ratio Decidendi: "Marriage between a baptised Christian and a not baptised non-