In the Matter of the Caveat entered by Christian Muttiah.

In the Matter of the Caveat entered by Christian Muttiah.

D. C., Colombo, 211.

Marriage registration-Ordinance No. ii of 1895, ss, 30, 31-Caveat by brother of bride-Frivolous end vexatious objection-Opportunity for showing cause.

A District Judge, who inquires summarily under section 31 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1895 into the matter of a caveat entered against a marriage proposed to be registered, is not bound to give the caveator in every case an opportunity to show cause why he should not be fined for entering the caveat on frivolous and vexatious grounds.

Per browne, A.J.- A caveator, who is not a legal guardian of either

of the parties who intend to marry, always takes upon himself a certain risk of creating a social scandal by his interference, and it is extremely desirable that all matters which such a person brings forward should be disposed of as quickly as possible. It is for this reason, I think, that Ordinance No. 2 of 1895, section 31, clause 2, requires that the procedure of the District Court should be by summary inquiry.

This Ordinance differs from the Criminal Procedure Code, which, in section 197 (3), requires that an opportunity for showing cause should be given, But there is no such provision in Ordinance No. 2 of 1896, and there is no necessity of giving time to show cause.

THIS was a proceeding based upon " The Marriage Registration Ordinance, 1895," sections 30 and 31. It appeared that one Mr. Chinniah and Miss Mary Muttiah intending to marry each other, proper notice thereof was given to the registrar of the district, but a brother of the bride named Christian Muttiah entered a caveat objecting to the marriage, whereupon the registrar reported the matter to the District Judge of Colombo. The caveator's objections were that the bride had been forced to give her consent to the marriage; that the mother also had consented under the influence of threats; that the bridegroom was a person of much lower status

in society than the set to which the bride belonged; and that, the bride would be discarded by her relatives if the marriage was solemnized in due course.

The Additional District Judge (Mr. F. R. Dias), after hearing evidence, was of opinion that the mother and bride had consented freely to the marriage, and that the caveat was entered on frivolous and vexatious grounds. Exercising his power under section 3i (2), he imposed a fine of Rs. 500 on Christian Muttiah.

The caveator appealed.

Walter Pereira (with him Elliott), for appellant.-Though section 31 does not provide that a party should be called upon to show cause why he should not be fined for entering a frivolous or vexatious caveat, yet that opportunity must be given to the alleged offender, even as it is given in the case of a similar offence dealt with in the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein to there is no provision as to showing cause (Silva v. Mamadu, 3 N. L. R. 3). A witness giving false evidence has also the opportunity of showing cause, though there is no special procedure laid down. Had the. appellant known that a fine was impending, he would not have rested his case upon his mother's evidence, but would have called other witnesses to prove coercion. The materials in the record were insufficient to justify a fine. The case of Tidoris v. Carolis (4 N. L. R. 325) proves the necessity for calling upon the offender to show cause. There was evidence, which was not adduced in the Court below, to show the bond fides of the appellant. [Browne, A. J.-There is no affidavit before us that the appellant had any more evidence, or that he has been prejudiced by not being called upon. Moncreiff, J.-The circumstances of the case much too clearly show that this was a frivolous and vexatious caveat.]

Van Langenberg, for respondent.

Moncreiff, J.-

Mr. Pereira has taken a technical objection. He says that by analogy with the practice in other cases, particularly two sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document