IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of a marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act depends on compliance with the Act's provisions and the conduct of the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The Court of learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Malda has rejected the appellant’s suit praying for a decree declaring the marriage dated 31.01.2010 solemnized with the respondent to be void. The suit was filed and numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 432 of 2013 (MAT Suit No. 432 of 2013).

2. As per the plaint and appellant’s deposition at the Trial Court, the facts which are not in dispute are that marriage was solemnized on 30.01.2010. Though this date was not disputed, the appellant/ plaintiff has come out with a case that the marriage was solemnized per force and by resorting to deception. It is also the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the rites, ceremonies and customs of the Malda Baptist Church were not followed and that the marriage was solemnized by a person who was not having a valid license in terms of Section 5 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. It is further case of the appellant/plaintiff that the marriage was not consummated.

3. Though there is pleading to the effect that the respondent has subjected the appellant/plaintiff to cruelty, no evidence has been led in this regard. The appellant/plaintiff has examined the Priest-in-Charge of the Church where the marriage was solemnized. He has deposed as P.W.2. His deposition reveals that he was authorized by the Bengal Baptist Union to conduct marriage ceremony and other Christian religious activities, at the relevant time when he was the President and Pastor-in-Charge of the Dakshin Dinajpur Baptist Union. The authorization in this regard vide letter dated 24.01.2008 was marked as Exhibit – 5.

4. The respondent in her Examination-in-Chief has admitted that the marriage was solemnized on 31.01.2010. According to her, the same was performed upon observing the Christian ceremonies and customs at the Christian Fellowship Church Kanirmore of District Malda in presence of the Priest-in-Charge (P.W.2). As per the respondent, the marriage was consummated on 31.01.2010 itself. She has narrated perpetration of cruelty upon her by the appellant/plaintiff, compelling her to file a petition under the Domestic Violence Act.

5. According to her, the situation thus had become irretrievable and unbearable soon after the marriage was solemnized. The parties, therefore, filed a case of mutual divorce before the learned District Judge, Malda on 11.03.2011 vide MAT Case No. 103 of 2011, which subsequently came to be dismissed. It is further her case that the petitioner/ plaintiff has also filed another case in the Court of Principal District Judge at Changalpattu in Chennai bearing I.D.O.P. Case No. 192 of 2012 for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion which was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant/plaintiff. The respondent has tendered certified copy of the petition for mutual divorce filed in MAT Suit No. 103 of 2011 which has been marked as Exhibit – D. She has flatly denied the suggestion that the marriage was not held as per rites, customs, ceremonies of the Church, or that the same was not in accordance with the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (‘Act’ for short).

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has emphatically submitted that the marriage not being solemnized according to the provisions contained in the Act and without observing the rites, practice and ceremonies of the Church wherein the marriage was solemnized is fit to be declared void. It is submitted that the marriage was solemnized by P.W.2 who was incompetent in terms of Section 5 of the Act to perform the marriage. The marriage, therefore, not being solemnized by any persons licensed under the Act as contemplated under Section 5, is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The marriage, being solemnized otherwise than in accordance with provisions of the Act was liable to be declared void.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits as per instruction contained in e-mail dated 12.07.2023, print of which has been handed to the Court that h