Judgment

GROVER, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court arising out of a matrimonial suit No. 17 of 1966 filed by the appellant against the respondent for a decree declaring that the marriage between the parties was null and void and asking for custody and care of the children, alimony pendente lite, permanent maintenance and other reliefs,

2. The facts may first be stated. The appellant and the respondent are close relations; their mothers being real sisters. It appears that prior to January 30, 1960 they had sexual relations as a result of which the appellant became enciente (pregnant). The respondent who was originally a Hindu had got converted to Christianity and professed the Roman Catholic faith. The appellant who was also a Hindu got converted to that faith and was baptised on January 29, 1960. On January 30, 1960 one Father Antoine solemnised the marriage of the parties at the Church of St. Ignatius, Calcutta. On May 10, 1960 the first child, a daughter, was born to the appellant. She gave birth toa second child, also a daughter, in October 1961. It would appear that the appellant left the home of the respondent in the year 1965 and the action out of which the appeal has arisen was filed in July 1966 on the original side of the High Court. It was dismissed by Mr. Justice Ghose and the appeal under the Letters Patent was also dismissed by the Division Bench.

3. In the petition a number of allegations were made relating to the conduct of the respondent. It was alleged, inter alia, that it was under duress, intimidation and undue influence that the sexual relationship started between the appellant and the respondent which ultimately resulted in the appellant conceiving a child. The conversion to Christianity as also the performance of the ceremony of marriage were all attributed to fraud, coercion and undue influence practised by the respondent. It was claimed that the appellant was minor at the time the marriage was solemnised and the consent of her father or her guardian was not taken nor did she give her own consent freely to the marriage. Furhter the marriage was void because the parties were within the prohibited degree of consanguinity. All these allegations were denied by the respondent. He gave his own version as to how the intimate relationship between the parties came to be developed and how the marriage was ultimately solemnised.

4. The learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the appellant and the respondent fell in love with each other which led to their marriage. He did not accept the case of the appellant that any fraud, coercion or undue influence had been practised or employed by the respondent or that Father Antoine had been guilty of giving fraudulent advice to the appellant. It was further held that the marriage had been solemnised by the proper priest after a dispensation had been obtained from the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church removing the impediment of consanguinity. It does not appear from the judgment that the point relating to invalidity of the marriage on account of absence of consent of the father or the guardian of the appellant was argued or decided by the learned trial Judge. The Divisioin Bench endorsed the view of the trial Judge about the circumstances in which the marriage came to be solemnised between the parties. The question of the effect of the minority of the appellant and the lack of consent of her father or guardian was allowed to be raised and after referring to the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church it was held that from the stand point of that law the objection to the validity of the marriage on the ground of lack of consent could not be sustained. The High Court expressed the view that in the present case the consent of the parents was not necessary as required under S. 19 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act. 1872, nor was there any provision in the Indian Divorce Act 1869 which rendered a marriage null and void