The main legal point established in the judgment is the influence of Canon Law in determining the validity of marriage for members of the Syrian Catholic Community and the significance of fraudulent misrepresentation of religious affiliation in nullifying a marriage.

O.P. No. 1074/87 is a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. while O.P. No. 1470/92 is a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. Petitioners in O.P. 1074/87 and OP 1470/92 will be referred as the wife and husband. in that order hereinafter. The parties met in December. 1985 and the wife consented to marry the husband. in the belief that he was a Christian. born of Christian parents. belonging loan ancient family. that belief having been induced by the husband by making a representation to that effect. The parties were married on 2-3-1986 at the St. Sebastian's Church. Thodupzha according to the rites of the Syrian Catholic community.

3. After marriage. they lived together for a while at the wife's place. and then moved to the husband's parental home. It was only then that the wife realised that the husband was an Ezhava. baptised into Christianity recently. and that his parents were Ezhavas and not Christians. as he had represented. The wife would say that the husband had hot only practised fraud on her. but had also misappropriated her jewels. Not content with these. he had also persuaded her to have sexual intercourse with his friends. says the wife. She petitions this court for a declaration that the marriage is a nullity. by reason of fraud practised on her to obtain her consent.

4. The husband appeared and filed a counter affidavit. contesting the petition. After an order of interim alimony was made in CMP No. 2013/91. the husband withdrew from the proceedings for all practical purposes. For that reason. his defences are liable to be struck off. in the light of the principles enunciated in Kamla Devi v. Rathi Rarn (1986 (2) DMC 308). Jai Singh v. KhimiBhiklu (1978 H.P. 45) and Marczuk v. Marczuk (1956(1) All England Reports 657 (CA)). Even so. the matter has to be considered on merits and it has also to be ensured that a decree is not obtained by collusion.

5. Likewise. the husband or his counsel did not appear in OP 1470/92. filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The case was adjourned from time to time. to afford further opportunities to the husband and his counsel to appear. Yet. there was no appearance or contest. Accordingly. the husband was declared exparte. However. Shri Sebastian Champappilly was appointed Amicus Curiae to address the Court on the different aspects arising in the petitions.

6. As noticed. fraud is the ground on which nullity is pleaded. and fraud alleged is withholding the information that the husband was a recent convert to Christianity. and making a false representation to the contrary. The wife states that she asked the husband whether he belonged to a Christian family, and that he answered in the affirmative. It turned out that the parents of the husband were not Christians. and that he himself was not a Christian. when he made the representation in December 1985. and when the wife consented to marry him. He was baptised only later (PW4). Having heard the evidence and watched her demeanour. I am inclined to accept the evidence of the wife. and I do so. I find that the husband had made a false representation. knowing it to be so and obtained consent of the wife to marriage. by practising fraud.

7. The wife consented to the marriage in December 1985. on three assumptions that the husband was a Christian. that his parents were Christians and that they belonged to an ancient Christian family. The evidence of P W4 shows that the husband was baptised only in 1986 (he does not mention the date). while consent was obtained in December. 1985. Evidence of the wife shows that the parents of the husband were not Christians. According to the custom of the community. as noticed by George Koilparampil in 'Caste in the Catholic Community in Kerala'. converts are considered socially inferior in status. and members of ancient families do not marry converts. The wife would also contend that one who is not a born Christian. cannot be considered a true Christian.

8. The concept of a born