PANDITI RATHNA RAJU Vs. GALIPOTHU MERCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question that engages in our mind in this appeal is, whether the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has application where one of the spouses to the marriage is not a Hindu and consequentially, whether a divorce can be granted on the petition filed by one of such parties in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) The appellant herein filed H.O.P No.20/2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur U/s 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree for divorce on the main averments that the appellant is a Hindu belongings to SC community. The respondent is also a Hindu and their marriage was performed on 3/5/1999 at his residence in Choutapalli Village, Proddutur Mandal, Kadapa District as per Hindu rites and customs and marriage was consummated immediately and the respondent joined him and for brief time they led happy marital life and thereafter the respondent left his society and went away to Nandikotkur to her parental home and on enquiry he came to know that she is having illicit connections with the 2nd respondent. The mediations were held but not fructified. Hence on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion, he filed the O.P. The 1st respondent challenged the maintainability of the O.P. under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that she is a Christian and marriage between the petitioner and her took place on 3/5/1999 at T.C.C Church, Choutapalli but not in the residence of the petitioner as per Hindu Rites and Customs as alleged in the petition. The marriage was performed according to the tradition and customs prevailing in Christian community. Christian Fathers Mathai and Balasundaram officiated the marriage as per Christian customs and therefore the divorce application under the Hindu Marriage Act was not maintainable. In her counter she denied the allegation touching the aspects of adultery, cruelty and desertion etc.

(3.) Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court framed the following points for consideration: