The judgment establishes that interfaith marriages conducted under the Hindu Marriage Act are void, requiring adherence to the Special Marriage Act for validity.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of February 2021 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J This appeal arises from the judgment dated 3.06.2019 in O.P. No. 1670 of 2016, filed by the respondent herein to declare that there is no husband and wife relationship between the parties and for injunction restraining the appellant from claiming her as his wife. A decree has been granted by the Family Court. Challenging the decree, this appeal has been preferred.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant though admits that the parties belonged to different religion, i.e., the appellant being Hindu and the respondent is Christian, nevertheless, the marriage ceremony was conducted in accordance with the customary rights belonged to Hindu community at Sree Parthasarathy Temple, Mundakkayam on 12.09.2010. It is submitted that appellant and respondent lived as husband and wife for more than five years.

4. The Family Court, after noting that the parties belonged to different religion and placing reliance on the judgment of this Court and Apex Court granted decree as prayed for by the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no scope for issuing a declaration, especially when the respondent has a case that the marriage itself is null and void. It is also submitted that unnecessary findings have been made in regard to the appellant, which has no bearing to the relief granted by the Family Court. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the marriage is void and the Family Court is justified in granting the relief sought for.

7. The appellant belongs to Hindu community and the respondent belongs to Christian community. Any marriage that took place in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act , will certainly have to be declared as null and void. The declaration was sought as there was a cloud in regard to the status of the parties in relation to the marriage. According to the respondent, the marriage took place in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies applicable to the Hindu community at Sree Parthasarathy temple, Mundakkayam. Declaratory relief is perfectly maintainable to declare the legal character of the marriage. If there is no declaration, the marriage ceremonies performed would affect the status of the parties. There cannot be any valid marriage between two individuals belonging to different faith in accordance with the personal law applicable to one party. The marriage of persons belonging to different communities can take place only in accordance with the Special Marriage Act.

8. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Family Court was justified in granting the relief. However, we find that unnecessary observations have been made in the impugned judgment. The Family Court accepted the allegations of ill treatment and cruelty alleged by the respondent. The respondent alleged that the appellant is an alcoholic and idle man. The Family Court entered into the finding that the stand of the respondent is proved. According to us, these findings are unnecessary and are not relevant for the consideration of the issues involved. It is not a case where the respondent sought an annulment of marriage based on any grounds available for divorce. The respondent's case itself before the Family Court is that there was no valid marriage in accordance with law. Therefore, scope of enquiry ought to have been limited as to the validity of the marriage that took place between the appellant and the respondent. Therefore, we are of the view that all other findings are unnecessary and have to be eschewed. Accordingly, such findings are expunged from the record. In the light of the fact that the parties belonged to different faith, we affirm the declaration granted by the Family Court.

With the observations as above, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE