The central legal point established in the judgment is that for a valid marriage to take place, both parties must be single, divorced, or widowed, as per the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869, and the personal law applicable to Christians in India.

Gentle, J.

1. This is a petition by Mr. William Hudson praying that the ceremony of marriage which he celebrated with the respondent on 20th April 1935, should be declared null and void on the ground that at the time of such celebration of marriage there was in full force and existence a marriage between the respondent and Mr. Webster at that time, The petitioner was previously married and his wife, who was the sister of the respondent, died in February 1934. Later in that year the petitioner contemplated marriage with the respondent. He knew from his relationship by marriage with her and the fact that she had stayed with himself and his wife on a number of occasions that she had gone through a ceremony of marriage with Mr. T.A. Webster. The respondent had left Mr. Webster some time before February 1934 and was living with the petitioner, and his then wife. The respondent had told him that a previous wife of Mr. Webster whom that gentleman at the time he went through a ceremony of marriage with the respondent believed to be dead, and whom he had not seen for more than seven years, had been discovered to be alive at the time of the ceremony of marriage between the respondent and Webster and was still alive in the year 1934 or thereabouts. The petitioner, some time later in 1934 consulted a lawyer in Bangalore and I understand, was accompanied by the respondent when he went to seek his advice. The facts of the matter were put before the lawyer who advised that a marriage between the petitioner and the respondent could not amount to a criminal offence, but it would be advisable to await the result of proceedings which wore then being taken in the Court of the learned Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer by Mr. Webster to obtain a declaration that his marriage with the respondent was null and void.

2. The petitioner in his evidence says that before the month of March 1935 the respondent, having received either a letter or a, telegram, purported to read out to him that the Court of the Judicial Com. missioner at Ajmere had declared that her marriage with Mr. Webster was, to use the word adopted by the petitioner when in the witness box, cancelled; on 20th April following, the parties to this petition went through a ceremony of marriage at the Richmond Town Methodist Episcopal Church, Bangalore Cantonment. According to the petition they are both Anglo. Indians and profess the Christian religion. The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, to whom I am indebted for a very able argument, at the outset stated and correctly stated the position at law that a ceremony of marriage ordinarily constituting a binding marriage between the parties subsists unless and until it is set aside on one or other of the grounds which justify annulling or setting aside a marriage. That contention was made in regard to the ceremony of marriage celebrated between the respondent and Mr. Webster. But it applies equally in regard to the ceremony of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent in this petition. I am asked to decree that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void and I can do so only when evidence is placed before me which proves the allegations which are made supporting the petition and which proves facts justifying the making of such a decree. The petitioner bringing this petition must shoulder the onus cast upon him to prove what he sets out to allege and if he fails to produce the evidence justifying the relief sought, it follows that the petition must be dismissed. The petitioner himself is the only witness who has been called. He told me that whilst he was aware of the earlier marriage ceremony between the respondent and Mr. Webster before he went through the marriage ceremony with her, she informed him that that earlier marriage had been cancelled or, in other words set aside. No evidence whatever was called before me to prove to my satisfaction of the existence of the marriage between the respondent