GRACE SHEELA Vs. P K GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the petitioner in O.P. No.35 of 1984, District Court, Trichur, under S.39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) and O.41 R.1 C.P.C. The petitioner filed the application for divorce of her marriage with the respondent under S.27 of the Act. The respondent married the petitioner on 29-6-1981 at Marthoma Church, Kunnamkulam, according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and customs of the church. Stating that the respondent has committed cruelty and it is impossible for the petitioner to continue the marital relationship, the petitioner filed the petition for divorce of the marriage under S.27 of the Act. Amongst other pleas, the respondent contended that the petition is not maintainable. The Court below held that since there is no case that the marriage was registered under the Act, the petition filed by the appellant (petitioner) for divorce of her marriage with the respondent under S.27 of the Act is unsustainable. The petitioner has ,come up in appeal.

(2.) We heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mathews P. Mathew and counsel for the respondent. Appellant's counsel referred to the preamble of the Act as also S.24, S.25 and S.27 of the Act and contended that there is nothing in the Act, which would exclude the application thereof to the case of the petitioner, no matter, that the marriage was one solemnised according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and customs of the church, to which the parties belong. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chistopher Andrew Neelakantan v. Mrs. Anne Neelkantan (AIR 1959 Raj. 133). On the other hand, counsel for the respondent placed considerable reliance on S.15, S.18 and S.27 of the Act, as also the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Aulvin V. Singh v. Chandrawati (AIR 1974 All. 278) and contended that the petition filed under S.27 of the Act in the instant case is not maintainable. On hearing the rival contentions of the parties, we are inclined to accept the plea of the respondent.

(3.) After adverting to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chistopher Andrew Neelakantan's case (AIR 1959 Raj. 133), Yashoda Nandan J. in Aulvin V. Singh's case (AIR 1974 All. 278) at pages 280 and 281 observed as follows: