The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 and the Canon Law, a marriage between a baptised Christian and a not baptised non-Christian is void, and the validity of baptism and marriage must be in accordance with the requirements of the Canon Law.

Original Petitions one filed under S.18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short "the act" ) for a decree declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent as null and void. Petitioner is the wife and first respondent is the husband. Second respondent is the father of the first respondent.

2. Petitioner was born as a Hindu belonging to Nair community. First respondent belongs to Latin Catholic Community and is employed as a Conductor in a private bus. According to the petitioner, she met the first respondent during her bus journeys to and from her college at Ernakulam where she has joined as a student for pre-degree course. The acquaintance soon became very close as a result of daily meetings. It is her case that first respondent enticed her, exploited her innocence and procured her love fraudulently. While so, it is her further case that in 1989 petitioner who was doing her second year pre-degree course, was coerced to execute an agreement for marriage on 1-11-1989. Thereafter she was made to believe that as per the agreement executed on 1-11-1989 she was married to the first respondent and was bound to stay with the first respondent in his house. Accordingly on 7-11-1989 she was again coerced to accompany the first respondent to his house at Alleppey On 25-11-1989 petitioner was taken to the Holy Family Church, Pollathai in Alleppey and was made to undergo a ceremony which she understood later as the baptism ceremony. On 30-11-1989 again was taken to the Church and a show of a marriage between her and the first respondent took place in which also she was forced to participate without her free will. Petitioner has alleged that as a matter of fact her consent for marriage was neither sought for nor has she given her consent for the marriage. Petitioner has further averred that baptism and the marriage alleged to have been conducted in her case are totally invalid and ineffective as they were done without her free will and not in accordance with the Canon law governing baptism and marriage. Though after the marriage on 30-11-1989 petitioner has stayed with the first respondent sometime, she left the company of first respondent with effect from 29-8-1990. According to the petitioner she was very much illtreated and tortured during her stay with the first respondent. Petitioner has further averred that on 17-10-1990 she has again got herself converted into Hindu Community since she was told that she has become a Christian by receiving baptism though in fact there was no valid baptism in her case. Petitioner has sought for a declaration of her marriage with the first respondent as null and void on the ground that her consent for the marriage was obtained by force, fraud, coercion and undue influence. She has also contended that the marriage is null and void on account of the fact that the baptism alleged to have been conducted in her case is totally irregular and illegal as it was conducted not in accordance with the Canon law. Several other averments have also been made to which it is not necessary to refer to in detail in this judgment as the point pressed during argument is only about the validity of the marriage and baptism conducted prior to the marriage.

3. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the second respondent denying all the material allegations in the O.P. and asserting that the marriage between himself and the petitioner was conducted with the petitioner's free consent after conducting baptism in accordance with the usual custom and practice followed by the Latin Catholics. The detailed allegations in the O.P. to the effect that the petitioner was enticed and won over by constant persuasion to be in love with the first respondent and was later induced to enter into a marriage agreement and still later intimidated and coerced into a marriage with him were all denied as totally false.

However, the allegations in the petition that the petitioner an