LAWS(PVC)-1929-9-35

PETER PHILIP SALDANHA Vs. ANNE GRACE SALDANHA

Decided On September 19, 1929
PETER PHILIP SALDANHA Appellant
V/S
ANNE GRACE SALDANHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice N. W. Kemp, declaring that the plaintiff was the lawfully wedded wife of defendant No. 1, that the marriage of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 2 was void and illegal, and ordering restitution of conjugal rights as between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1.

(2.) The facts in the case are not in dispute. The parties to the suit are all Roman Catholics, and the respondent (original plaintiff) and appellant No. 1 (original defendant No. 1) are of Goan domicile. On June 9, 1928, appellant No. 1 and the respondent were betrothed at the Church of Dabul as appears from a certificate of betrothal, Exh. Section On the same day appellant No. 1 wrote a letter, Exh. No. 3, to the Vicar of the Church of Dabul, informing him that he had changed his mind and requesting him to stop the reading of the banns. The Parish priest in consequence did not read the banns, .On June 14, 1928, appellant No. 1 and the respondent went through a civil ceremony of marriage before the Registrar of Marriages in Bombay, -see marriage certificate, Exh, B. That marriage was never consummated. The parties did not live together, and appellant No. 1 requested the respondent to treat the marriage as secret. On June 27, 1928, appellant No. 1 went through a form of marriage with appellant No. 2 (original defendant No. 2) at the Church of the Sacred Heart, Igatpuri, see marriage certificate, Exh. F-and thereafter the appellants lived together. On July 6, 1928, a complaint for bigamy was filed by appellant No. 2 against appellant No. 1, who was acquitted on that charge by the Sessions Judge on November 1, 1928. Against that acquittal an appeal has been preferred by Government, That appeal has been heard by my brother and myself immediately before the hearing of the present appeal. In the criminal appeal, the Advocate General appeared for the Government of Bombay, and Mr. Godinho for the accused. In the present case, Mr. Khan, who appeared for the appellants, in addition to his own arguments, adopted the arguments of Mr. Godinho submitted to us in the criminal appeal, and Mr. Baptista, who appeared for the respondent, acted similarly in adopting the arguments of the Advocate General as part of his argument. We reserved our judgments in both cases, and have therefore had the benefit of the arguments of counsel in both before giving our judgments.

(3.) The appellants contend that the civil marriage of June 14, 1928, was forbidden by the personal law of the parties as being contrary to the canons of the Church of Rome. The decision in this case depends upon the proper construction of Section 88 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, which is in these terms:- Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to validate any marriage which the personal law applicable to either of the parties forbids him or her to enter into.