DEEPTHI RAJAN Vs. RAJASEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Matrimonial Appeal, instituted under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is against an order passed by the Family Court, Kollam in IA No 907/2014 in OP (HMA) No.116/2013. The appellant herein is the respondent before the Family Court and the petitioner in the interim application. The case before the court below was instituted by the respondent herein and he is the respondent in IA No.907/2014.

(2.) Original petition before the Family Court was filed seeking for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on 06-04-2009 at Kollam, under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Allegations in brief are that, the appellant herein had deserted the respondent from 27-12-2012 onwards and treated him with cruelty by way of physical and mental torture. The appellant herein entered appearance through her power of attorney holder and filed IA No.907/2014 before the court below, seeking dismissal of the case on the ground that it is not maintainable before the Family Court, Kollam. Contentions are that, the parties were living as husband and wife at Singapore, even prior to the marriage which was solemnized at Kollam on 06-04-2009. It is contended that their marriage was already solemnized and registered before the Deputy Registrar of Marriages at the Registry of Marriages, Singapore, on 21-01-2009. A 'Marriage Certificate' was issued to that effect. It is pointed out that the above fact was conceded in the original petition itself. Contention is that the marriage registered at Singapore is legally valid and was allowed to subsist all along. Hence it is contended that the original petition filed before the Family Court is not maintainable and that court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition, because the marriage conducted at Kollam on 06-04-2009 was only for the purpose of satisfying of the relatives in India; and hence it is a voidable marriage. According to the appellant, there cannot be two marriages for a couple. A couple who got married legally from one country cannot solemnize their marriage again in a different country by suppressing the material fact that they are husband and wife, is the contention. It is contended that the effect that the marriage solemnized at Kollam on 06-04-2009 is in clear violation of Section 5 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954. Hence the Registration Certificate obtained from Kollam Corporation under the Kerala Hindu Marriages Registration Rules, is by way of suppressing the fact that they were already married on 21-01-2009 at Singapore and acquired legal status of husband and wife. It is pointed out that the Hindu Marriage Act only allows the respondent to register their marriage already solemnized at Singapore and not to solemnize any marriage in India. It is also contended that, if at all a divorce is granted in the original petition, the parties will remain legally as husband and wife, since the original marriage solemnized and registered at Singapore is surviving. A further contention is that the parties are permanent residents of Singapore and it prevents them from filing a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, because provisions of the said Act will apply only to Hindus domiciled within the territories to which the Act applies. Hence the Family Court was requested to hear the point of jurisdiction and maintainability as a preliminary issue.

(3.) The respondent herein filed objections to the interlocutory application by refuting the allegation that the parties have lived together as husband and wife at Singapore. It is contended that there was only a formal registration of the marriage at Singapore, which was done only for the sake of Visa and employment; and this fact was rightly pointed out in the original petition. It is contended that the marriage solemnized at Kollam on 06-04-2009 was performed with all religious rites under the custom prevalent in India, and it was registered as required under the statutory provisions. Since the marriage was solemnized and consummated in India, contention that the marriage was solemnized at Singapore, is not true and correct. It is contended that the marriage solemnized at Kollam on 06-04-2009 is the only marriage of the couple which is legally valid. According to the respondent, no legal marriage was solemnized and consummated nor they have lived together as husband and wife, before the legally valid marriage solemnized on 06-04-2009 at Kollam. Since both the parties are governed by provisions of the Hindu code, they were competent to enter into a legal marriage. All the allegations raised to the contrary are denied. It is also denied that the respondent has got citizenship or domicile in Singapore. Hence the contention that the courts in India has no territorial jurisdiction is also refuted. According to the respondent, a formal and name sake registration of the marriage, which took place at Singapore, cannot be taken as a hindrance for the performance of a legal marriage, fully in tune with all the requisites under the the Hindu Marriage Act. It is contended that Section 5 (i) of the Act is intended and mandates only a stipulation to avoid bigamy. The provisions speaks for monogamy and is intended to prohibit polyandry in India. Hence the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain the original petition and it is maintainable before that court, is the contention.