SHANTI Vs. JOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under S.20 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short 'the Act'). Application was filed by the wife before the Family Court, Kozhikode under S.19 of the Act on the ground that respondent had a wife living at the time of solemnization of the marriage with her on 23-3-1996. Existence of wife at the time of marriage was pleaded to be a ground to affect validity of the marriage. Though the respondent accepted that he was earlier married, he took the stand that the same has been nullified by the Eparchial Tribunal.

(2.) Learned Judge of Family Court, Kozhikode Was of the view that declaration of dissolution of marriage by the Eparchial Tribunal is of no consequence as the said Tribunal has no jurisdiction to annul the marriage. Such power is only conferred on Courts as indicated in the Act itself. Accordingly the marriage solemnised between her and respondent was held to be void.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the accepted position that there was an earlier marriage, the only question that needs to be adjudicated is whether the dissolution of the marriage, if any, by the Eparchial Tribunal is of any consequence. A Full Bench of this court in George Sebastian v, Molly Joseph (1994 (2) 387) held that the rights flowing out of a legal marriage among Christians cannot be interfered with by Eparchial Tribunal and the marriage cannot be dissolved except by resort to the provisions under the Indian Divorce Act. The, view of the apex court in Molly Joseph v. George Sebastian ( 1997 (1) KLT 1 (SC)) has put the controversy beyond any shadow of doubt.