MARIA PHILOMENA FURTADO Vs. AUSTIN FURTADO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Pr1. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore dated 16.9.2005 in M.C. No.75/ 2000. Respondent filed a petition under Sees. 24 & 25 of the Special Marriage Act r/w Sec.18 of the Indian Divorce Act. According to the petition averments, petitioner and respondent are closely related. Mother of the petitioner and mother of the respondent are direct sisters and they agree to marry each other as per Christian rites and customs on 28.7.1987. Betrothal function was also held. On account of the difference of opinion arose between them, marriage could not be solemnized. As per the terms of the betrothal function, marriage should have been solemnized within six months from the date of engagement. Since marriage was not held within six months, engagement got cancelled and thereafter petitioner started living as a bachelor.

(2.) IN the year 1994, petitioner met the respondent in a funeral ceremony of a relative Mr. Alphanso Pinto and after the funeral ceremony respondent informed the petitioner that still she is a spinster and requested the petitioner to forget all the differences and to give a life to her. Believing her request he married the respondent under the Special Marriage Act on 29.10.1994 before the Marriage Officer, Mangalore City and started living together at Bejai. Respondent was irritating the petitioner and started treating with utmost cruelty, she never used to cook food and was not taking care of his daily needs. Therefore, petitioner was compelled to bring food from hotels and without any information respondent left matrimonial home within a month after the marriage. Later on, at the instance of the relatives and respectable persons of the community again marriage was solemnized on 11.1.1996 at Holy Church, Derebail. Again she started threatening the petitioner and she never cooked food for the petitioner.

(3.) TO what order or decree? On appreciating the evidence, trial Court held points 1 to 4 in the affirmative and allowed the petition by declaring the marriage solemnized between the parties on 29.10.1994 and on 11.1.1996 as null and void by judgment and decree dated 16.9.2005. This order is called in question in this appeal. 5. The main contentions of the appellant's counsel before us are that the trial Court has committed a serious error in allowing the divorce petition on the ground of nullity. According to him, there was no suppression of facts. It was known to the respondent the relationship between them and that Ex.P-7 is a dispensation certificate issued by the Bishop of Mangalore. In view of the dispensation granted by the Bishop of Mangalore, marriage solemnized between the parties has to be held as valid. He further contends that there was no marriage solemnized between the appellant and Latheef and trial Court should not have given much weight to the document produced by the respondent to show that there was marriage between the appellant and Latheef and such an agreement cannot be construed as a marriage solemnized between the appellant and Latheef. He further contends that the agreement of marriage has been subsequently cancelled, therefore alleged marriage between the appellant and Latheef cannot be a ground for the respondent to seek divorce against the appellant on the ground of nullity.