JOSE Vs. ALICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Jose and the 1st respondent Alice-both Roman Catholic Christians - were married according to their religious rites on 15-1-1981 in the Santhipuram Church. The marriage was solemnized by a minister of the Roman Catholic Church according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and customs of the church. It is not disputed that the minister had received episcopal ordination and was competent to solemnize the marriage under sub-s. (1) of S.5 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. After marriage the couple resided in the house of the petitioner for 2 1/2 months. During the course of their stay together the petitioner suspected the chastity of the wife. According to him she was pregnant even at the time of the marriage. The pregnancy was terminated at the instance of the petitioner and the respondent wife was left at her parents' house. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Archdiocesan Tribunal, Ernakulam to declare the marriage as null and void and the Tribunal by Ext. D1 decree granted a declaration as prayed for. The matter was taken in appeal before the Eparchial Tribunal, Trichur and as per its order Ext. D2 the decision of the Archdiocesan Tribunal declaring the marriage as null and void was confirmed. The respondent thereafter filed a petition under S.125 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur against the petitioner for maintenance. Overruling the contention of the petitioner that the marriage is null and void, and it has been so declared by the ecclesiastical tribunals, the learned Magistrate ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/-per month from the date of the petition. The decision of the Magistrate was confirmed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. The present petition is under S.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the decision of the magistrate and the Sessions Court directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent.

(2.) According to the petitioner he was not aware of the pregnancy of the respondent on the date of the marriage and his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud in withholding such a vital information. It is for that reason that the petitioner contended that the marriage is null and void and the contention was accepted by the ecclesiastical tribunals as per Exts. Dl and D2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M. I. Joseph has raised two contentions before us viz. (1).- that the marriage solemnized according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and customs of the church to which the parties belong had been declared by the ecclesiastical tribunals to be null and void as per Exts. Dl and D2 and the respondent is not his wife entitled to maintenance under S.125(1) of the Crl. P. C., and (2) even if the decision of the ecclesiastical tribunals is not to be treated as final and conclusive between the parties, the courts below should have considered the question of fraud alleged by the petitioner in extending his consent for the marriage.