The High Court has the jurisdiction to execute Decrees of Annulment of Marriages passed by Ecclesiastical Courts without verification by the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, Rome, but the Decrees must be verified by the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Bombay.

Headnote:
EXECUTION OF DECREES - ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGES - DECREES OF ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS - VERIFICATION BY SUPREME TRIBUNAL OF APOSTOLIC SIGNATURE, ROME - CHANGE IN CANON LAW - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - EXECUTION OF DECREES WITHOUT VERIFICATION BY ROME - PROCEDURE - AMENDMENT OF RULES - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BY SENIOR MOST JUDGE OF THE BENCH.
Fact of the Case:

The issue arose due to a change in Canon Law, which resulted in Decrees of Annulment being verified by the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Bombay instead of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, Rome. This led to a Single Judge of the High Court holding that the High Court's jurisdiction was limited to verifying whether the Decrees were in respect of a marriage celebrated within its territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the prevailing Rules did not convey any authority to the Special Officer, who was functioning like a Registrar of the High Court, to execute the type of decrees which were the subject-matter of the References. The Court also held that the earlier system, whereby in every case the Decrees of Annulment were placed before the Judicial Commissioner so as to enable him to administratively deal with the matter, should be restored.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to execute Decrees of Annulment of Marriages passed by Ecclesiastical Courts without verification by the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, Rome? 2. Whether the Special Officer had the authority to execute such decrees?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the change in Canon Law did not affect the High Court's jurisdiction to execute Decrees of Annulment of Marriages passed by Ecclesiastical Courts. However, the Court held that the Decrees had to be verified by the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Bombay instead of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, Rome. 2. The Court held that the prevailing Rules did not convey any authority to the Special Officer to execute the type of decrees which were the subject-matter of the References.
Final Decision: The Court directed that in each and every case, the decrees which are forwarded by the Ecclesiastical Courts should be placed before the Senior most Judge of the Bench to enable him to act administratively on the matter and direct its execution by causing it to be forwarded to the Civil Registrar for necessary endorsement in the competent Books of Registration.

JUDGEMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :---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.

4. In the aforesaid note of the Special Officer dated 3rd October, 1994 a brief reference was made to the historical and factual background of this issue inasmuch as it was mentioned that the law prevailing in this State at the time of its Liberation from the Portuguese rule and incorporated in the Decree No. 35461 was saved by the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 which in its section 5 provides that all laws in force immediately before the "appointed day" (i.e. 20th December, 1961) in Goa, Daman and Diu or any part thereof shall continue to be in force therein until amended or repea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis