JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 351 of 2017 filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for striking down Article 19 of Decree No. 35461 as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, for a declaration that the order passed by this Court upon request by the Patriarchal Tribunal and Metropolitan Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunals’ for short) to enforce their decision, without revision or confirmation, and directing that an endorsement be made in the Books of the Civil Registration Office in the margin next to the entry of the Marriage Register is null and void.

2. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the endorsement made by the Civil Registrar pursuant to the order passed under Article 91 of Decree No. 35461 cancelling the marriage registration is illegal, null and void. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from acting in pursuance of such order made by this Court or in pursuance to the endorsement made in the Marriage Register. Without prejudice to the aforesaid prayers, the petitioner has also prayed for passing and setting aside the decision of Patriarchal Tribunal and of the Metropolitan Tribunal, Exhibit P-2 collectively.

3. Insofar as Writ Petition No. 691 of 2013 is concerned, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter-alia praying for a writ of certiorari and for quashing and setting aside the order of Patriarchal Tribunal of Archdiocese of Goa and Daman dated 22nd March, 2012 for declaring Article 19 of the Decree No. 35461 as unconstitutional and null and void. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 is valid, for a direction against the Registrar of Civil Marriages to cancel the endorsement of nullity in the Book of Registration of Marriages. By consent of both the parties, these petitions were heard together finally and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

4. Insofar as Writ Petition No. 351 of 2017 is concerned, the case of the petitioner is as under:-

(a) The petitioner and the respondent got married on 26th September, 2009 in the Church of Our Lady of Penha da Franca, Goa which marriage was duly registered in the office of Civil Registrar of Bardez at Mapuca against entry No. 420/09 in the Book of Marriage Register of the year 2009.

(b) The petitioner and the respondent no. 4 proposed to each other and after they decided to get married, after about 14 days, the respondent no. 4 went back on board the ship where he was working. The respondent no. 4 came down to Goa about three months before the marriage. During these three months, the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 would meet and talk to each other. The petitioner was working in Goa.

(c) The respondent no. 4 was deeply in love with the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 through his advocate's notice admitted that he took a liking for the petitioner in the very first meeting and accorded his consent to marry the petitioner. The petitioner also had liking for the respondent no. 4 and gave her consent to marriage. On 26th September, 2009, the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 got married. After the marriage, differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4. The parties made attempts for conciliation before Parish Priest, however, were unable to work out their differences. It is the case of the petitioner that the mother, sister and aunt of the respondent no. 4 interfered with the decision of the respondent no. 4.

(d) After a period of three years of married life, the respondent no. 4 filed a petition before Patriarchal Tribunal for annulment of marriage with the petitioner. It was alleged in the said petition that the petitioner had superiority complex as she was a graduate wife, whereas the respondent no. 4 was not a graduate. She was domineering and also could not stand hi