Present: Porter and Schneider JJ.

THIAGARAJA v. KURUKAL.

60-D. C. Jaffna, 4,971.

Brahmin marrying a girl of eleven years according to Hindu rites-Sub sequent cohabitation of spouses for several years--Is marriage valid ?-Marriage Ordinance applicable to Hindu marriages- Recognition of marriage according to Hindu rites is only as to solemnization.

A Brahmin married a, girl when she was eleven years and one month old according to Hindu customary ceremonies. The spouses cohabited after the female had attained puberty and lived for some years as husband and wife, and were received as such by their relations and friends.

Held, that the marriage was not valid. Subsequent cohabitation did not render the marriage valid ab initio.

The recognition of customary marriages is a recognition only of the custom as to the mode of solemnization and nothing else. The Marriage Ordinance must be regarded as applicable to all marriages in regard to all other matters about which it contains express provisions. The provisions of the Ordinance as to the prohibited age of marriage (section 16), prohibited degrees of relationship (section 17), incest (section 18), re-marriage (section 19), dissolution of marriage (section 20), suits to compel marriage (section 21), legitimation by subsequent marriage (section 22), consent to marriage of a minor (section 23), are applicable to all marriages however solemnized."

THE facts appear from the judgment.

Hayley (with him J. E. Obeysekera and Nadarajah), for appellant.

Arulanadan (with him Ramachandra), for respondent.

 July 4. 1923. SCHNEIDER J.-

 The District Judge has found that the intestate Sundrakurukkal  was a Brahmin, and had been married in September, 1909, to one Chelamma, when she was eleven years and one month old, according to Hindu customary ceremonies. He also found that the spouses cohabited after the female had attained puberty, that they lived together for some years as husband and wife, and were received as such by their relations and friends. The findings of the learned District Judge were not seriously challenged, even if they had been challenged, I would have accepted them as they are warranted by the evidence.

The only question of law submitted for our decision was whether the marriage in question was a valid one. The learned District Judge had held that it was invalid, inasmuch as the female party had not completed her twelfth year at the date of the marriage as required by section 16 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance, No. 19 of 1907. But he also held that the marriage was rendered valid by the subsequent cohabitation. For this proposition of law he cites the following passage from 2 Pereira's Laws of Ceylon, p. 215 : " Although the want of age avoids the marriage, cohabitation after the attainment of the age of puberty renders the marriage valid ah initio." For the appellant it was contended that the marriage in question was invalid as being obnoxious to the provisions of section 16 of the Ordinance already mentioned. This contention and the ground upon which the District Judge decided the case raises two questions. First, whether the Ordinance, No. 19 of 1907, applies to the marriage of the intestate, and, next, whether the subsequent cohabitation rendered that marriage valid ab initio, even if it were invalid according to the provisions of that Ordinance. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the provisions of section 16 of the Ordinance did not apply to the marriage in question, because the parties were Brahmins, and according to their customary law the females should be married before they attain the age of puberty, which, in all cases, would mean before they attain twelve years of age, and, next, that although the marriage was solemnized according to customary law, it was still a valid marriage, although not solemnized according to the provisions of the Ordinance, and that, there