LAWS(MAD)-2003-6-106

T PERUMAL Vs. R NESAMMAL

Decided On June 20, 2003
T.PERUMAL Appellant
V/S
R.NESAMMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above second appeal is directed against, the judgment and decree dated 27-6-1991 rendered in A.S. No. 57 of 1990 by the Court of District Judge. Nagercoil thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 29-10-1986 rendered in O.S. No. 256 of 1985 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.

(2.) Plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit in O.S. No.256 of 1985 before the trial Court against his wife, the respondent herein, for a declaration that the plaintiff and the defendant are not husband and wife and for an injunction restraining the defendant from claiming any right against the plaintiff as his wife on averments such as that he is a born Hindu and he is professing Hindu religion all along; that the defendant is a Christian belonging to C.S.I. Church; that it was misrepresented to him that the defendant is a Hindu as a result of which the marriage between himself and the defendant was solemnised on 29-10-1982 at the residence of the defendant at Kamplar, Manakarai in accordance with Hindu ceremonies and subsequent to the marriage, he came to know that the defendant is a Christian.

(3.) The plaintiff would further submit that a marriage under Hindu Law with Hindu rites and ceremonies is not permissible between a Christian and a Hindu, that a marriage between the Hindu and a Christian is possible only under either the Christian Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act, that no such marriage took place between the plaintiff and the defendant under the abovesaid Acts; that inasmuch as the defendant is not a Hindu and the marriage ceremony was conducted in accordance with Hindu Law, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is illegal and void and therefore there is no valid marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant; that a marriage between a Hindu and a Christian cannot be celebrated under the Hindu Marriage Act and hence the marriage creates no obligation between the parties and there cannot be a relationship of husband and wife in law between the plaintiff and the defendant.