LexLAKSHMI SANYAL versus SACHIT KUMAR DHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
122 LAKSHMI SANY AL v. SACHIT KUMAR DHAR September 8, 1972 A [A. N. GROVER, M. H. BEG AND A. N. MUKHERJEA, JJ.) B Marriage-Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (15 of !812)- Canon Law-Partfes to marriage professing Roman Catholic faith- Solemenisation of marriage by person competent under s. 5(1)- 0bjection to ntarriage on ground of lack of consent of parent or guardian as required under s. 19-App/icabi/ity of s. 19 to marriage solemnised by person in category I of section 5-Marriage within prohibited degree of consanguinity-Dispensation by . appropriate under canon Jaw- C Availability of ground No. 2 in section 19. The appellant filed a suit for a declaration that her marriage with the respondent was null and void and for other reliefs. The parties professed the Roman Catholic faith. The marriage was solemnised by a Minister of the Roman Catholic Church who had received epi- scopal ordination and was competent to solemnise the marriage under D sub .... (1) of s. 5 of the Indian Christian Marriage Acr;l872. The appellant claimed that she was a minor at the time the marriage was solemnised and the c~nsent of her father or her guardian was not taken, nor did she give her own consent freely to the marriage. Further, the mar- riage was void because the parties were within the prohibited degree of consanguinity. The High Court held th~t from the standpoint of Canon Law if the Roman Catholic church the objection to the validity of the marriage on the ground of lack of consent could not be E sustained. The High Court expressed the view that the consent of the parents was not necessary as required under s. 19 of the Indian Chris- tian Marriage Act since the .marriage was solemnised by a person falling under s. 5(1), nor was there any provision in the Indian Divorce Act. 1869 which rendered a marriage null and void on the ground of minority of a party, On the question of the marriage being within the prohibited degree of consanguinity it '\\'as found that since the consanguinity bet- ween the parties was of the second degree it was certainly an impedi- F ment in the way· of the marriage under the Roman Catholic law; But the impediment could be removed by dispensation which was granted bv the competent authorities of the church; for that reason the n"rriage c·ould not be held to be null and void. Dismissing the appeal. HELD : (i) The High Court was right in holding that the pro. visions of s. 19 of the Christian Marriage Act was not applicable to the present case since the • marriage was solemnised by a person falling G under s. 5 (1). The making of separate provisions in Parts III, V and VI of the Indian Christian Marriage Act relating to marriage of minors and the requirement of consent of the parents or the guardian shows that each part is meant to be self--contained. The categories of persons covered by those parts and the provisions appearing therein cannot be applied to m~.rriages solemnised by persons falling in categories 1 and 11 men- tiQJ>ed in section ~. In these two cate.gories a person w~o can solemryi- 30. the marriage can do so only according to the rules~ ntes, ceremonies and customs of the particular church to which the Minister belongs. H ' ~- J-- .. ~ ;_if .., " ,. " ( ( B c D E F G H LAKSHMI SANYAL v. s. K. DHAR (Grover, I.) 123 In other words, if a marriage has to be solemnised by a Minister be- longing to the Roman Catholic Church which fall within category 1, he is bound to follow only the rules, rites and ceremonies and customs of the Church to whidh he belongs and it is not possible to apply the provisions of Part III to him. Part III only applies to Ministers of Religion licensed under the Act. Section 19 could not therdore, be applicable to the marriage of the appellant and the respondent which was solemnized by a person in category 1 .of section 5. [128G-129Bl Rev. Father Caassave/ v. Rev. Saurez, l.L.R. 19 Mad. 273, referred to. There is no .Provision in the Canon Law which contains a pruhibition against the marriage of a minor in the absence of the consent of his or her parents It appears that under Canon Law so Jong as a minor has reached the age of capacity to contract the marriage can be solemn- ized and the lack or absence of consent of the parents or guardion will not invalidate the marriage. [130B-C] (ii) Once c.l(spensation is granted by the appropriate authorities the parties cannot be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.