JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a matrimonial suit. The suit as it originally instituted was based on the following allegations:

The petitioner is a European domicile in India and since his very childhood has been deficient in mentality. He had to be looked after by his relations throuf'hout his life. The respondent is a woman of loose character and has been so from her girlhood. Her brothers and brother's son, in October 1930, land on other occasions, several times threatened the petitioner that unless he married the respondent, he would be visited with "dire consequences," that the ground on which those threats were held out was a false one, being to the effect that the petitioner had "deprived the respondent of her caste." The respondent was already married and her husband, Mohammad Ali, was still alive. But in spite of this fact the petitioner, on account of the threats and being an "idiot," went through a form of marriage with the respondent, on lOfch November 1930. On these allegations, the petitioner prayed that, on the ground of his idiocy and on ground that his consent to the marriage-had been obtained by force and fraud, his marriage with the respondent might be declared null and void.

2. The respondent contested the petition and alleged that at the time of the marriage she had been converted into Christianity, according to the Eoman Church, that she was then a widow; that she had never been married to any Mohammad Ali and at the time of the marriage, her husband was not alive; that no relation of hers exercised any undue influence or pressure on the petitioner; that the res. pondent was never a prostitute as alleged in the petition; that the petitioner was not an idiot; that he fully understood the nature of the marriage contract; that the petitioner himself was anxious to marry the respondent and he alone made all the necessary arrangements; that no fraud was ever practised on the petitioner as-regards the marriage and that the marriage was valid and lawful in every way. She further stated that the parties had' known each other for a long time.

3. The suit came for a first hearing before one of the learned Judges of this Court who was not the trial Judge, and on 27th June 1932, six issues were framed as. noted at p. 5 of the printed paper-book. Before the learned Judge (King, J,) the petitioner abandoned the plea that the marriage was null and void on the ground that the respondent was married to Mohammad Ali at the time of the marriage-in question. On 7th November 1932, after the Eeverend Father Livesay, a witness for the respondent; had been examined, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner that the plaint might be amended and a ground for the declaration that the marriage was void might be added to the plaint, namely, the marriage had not been solemnized according to the rules, rites and ceremonies and customs of the Eoman Catholic Church : see p. 42 of the printed record. This application, was granted on the same day. The next day, on 8th November 1932, a further application for amendment of the plaint was made by the petitioner, and an other ground was sought to be added to the plaint, namely, the marriage was void, because the person performing the marriago was not so authorized under the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act. This was also allowed. The hearing of the evidence in the case was concluded on 7th November 1932 and the judgment was delivered on 14th November 1932. It appears that on the amendment boing allowed, a plea was taken orally on behalf of the respondent that a suit based on the allegation that the marriage was null and void because the proper rites of the Catholic Church had not been observed and because the person performing the marriage was not authorised to do so, could not be maintained in the High Court. The learned Judge, therefore, first tried the question of jurisdiction. He found that he had jurisdiction to hear the amended ease also