SRINIVASAN, J.

This case raises an interesting question of law. The original petition is one filed under S. 4 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872

2. The respondent remained ex parte and the petitioner gave evidence in support of the allegations made in the petition. He has marked the agreement as Exhibit A-1. A perusal of Exhibit A- 1 shows that there was no marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act. The agreement by itself cannot bring about a valid marriage.

3. The District Judge has accepted the evidence adduced by the petitioner and held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief prayed for by him. But instead of passing a decree for declaring the marriage to be void, the District Judge ordered that the marriage said to have been performed between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved. It was also added by the District Judge that the decree is subject to confirmation by this Court under S. 20 of the Indian Divorce Act.

4. Both the petitioner and the respondent have not chosen to engage counsel in this proceeding which has come on a reference from the District Court. Hence the Court appointed amicus curiae for th