JOAO AZAVEDO VICENTE PAULO FERNANDES Vs. CLARA RODRIGUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three references which arise out of Decrees of Annulment sent by the Patriarchal Tribunal of Goa and Daman duly ratified by the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archidocese of Bombay can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment since they raise the same questions of fact and law.

(2.) THE references were made consequent upon the note dated 19th July, 1994, put up by the Special Officer in view of an earlier order passed by Kamat, J. , on a similar note which is dated 26th April, 1994. By the aforesaid order, Kamat, J. , directed that the subject-matter of the References required a fresh look and therefore whatever Decrees had come up to that time for execution should be forwarded to the office of the Registrar of Marriages as per the practice followed and no more until further orders.

(3.) THE subject of the controversy is that under the prevailing law in this State, which is the successor of the former Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, the Decrees of Annulment of the courts and Tribunals instituted under the Canon Law had to be sent to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, Rome, for the purpose of its verification only and once the same were verified they were directly forwarded from Rome to the competent High Court for the purpose of its execution so as to get the annulment ordered by the Ecclesiastical Courts endorsed in the Civil Registration Office. This procedure was acknowledged as valid and very much in force by order dated 28th March, 1981, passed by the Acting Judicial Commissioner, according to which only decrees passed by the Ecclesiastical Courts in Goa and verified by the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, Rome, would be able to be executed through the High Court in terms of Article 19 (1) of the Decree No. 35461 dated 22nd January, 1946. Subsequent to this order it appears that there was a change in the Canon Law as a result whereof Decrees of the Tribunals and Courts instituted in respect of annulment are to be verified not by the Tribunal at Rome but instead by the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdocese of Bombay. It was on the strength of this change in the Canon Law that a Single Judge of this Court, in Civil Reference No. 1/b/82, by judgment dated 17th December, 1982, held that considering the change of law, which is to be reflected in Article 19 itself, the jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to see whether or not the Decrees of the Ecclesiastical Courts lie in respect of a marriage celebrated within its territorial jurisdiction. Thus, bearing in mind that the High Court has no power to look into the merits of the Decree, such change has to be read in sub-section (1) of Article 19 which becomes thus inoperative inasmuch as it required the Supreme Tribunal of Rome to forward its decision to the High Court through the diplomatic channel. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge held that the provisions of Article 19 (1) of the Decree 35461 had to be construed reading into it the changes of the Canon Law and hence once annulment of a Catholic marriage had been confirmed by the competent Ecclesiastical Tribunal it would be sufficient to forward such Decree to the High Court for the purpose of its execution without getting it verified by the Supreme Tribunal of Apostolic Signature at Rome and forwarded to the High Court through diplomatic channel.