Divorce decree by church not valid, can't override law: SC


New Delhi, Jan 19 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea that sought recognition to divorce decrees passed by ecclesiastical courts to Catholic couples.

A bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dismissed the public interest litigation filed by Bengaluru-based Clarence Pais, who urged that divorces granted by canonical courts should also be recognised as valid as was the case with 'triple talaq' under the Shariah law.

The petitioner contended that if divorce decrees passed by ecclesiastical courts were not recognised by the civil courts, a large number of Christian men will face prosecution for bigamy under the Indian Penal Code if they remarried after getting favourable divorce decrees from the canonical courts.

The court order, which dismissed the three-year-old PIL filed by Clarence Pais, an advocate and a former president of the Catholic Association of Dakshina Kannada in Karnataka, may also have a bearing on a clutch of petitions that have sought declaring triple talaq as unconstitutional and illegal.

But a bench led by Chief Justice of India J S Khehar dismissed the petition filed by Pais, and invoked a judgment holding that parliamentary laws shall override personal laws and that “statutory provisions shall prevail and override any personal law”.

The bench, however, said that the petition was “devoid of merit” and deserved to be dismissed in view of the 1996 judgment which had settled the law on the point of marriage and divorce among Christians. The court said that a divorce decree can be passed only by a district court or a high court, authorised under the Divorce Act.

The bench said that the PIL lacked merit after what the apex court said in its 1996 ruling and would be dealt with right away.

Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code prohibits and punishes remarriage if a surviving spouse and a valid marriage are surviving.

Section 494 deals with marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife. "Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Under the Christian canonical law, Catholics are required to marry in a Catholic church and the same could be dissolved by the canonical court only. The marriage and its dissolution by any authority other than the church is not recognised by it.

Pais had sought declaration that the canon law as the personal law of Catholic Christians in India and that the dissolution of marriage by these courts as binding and recognised.

The petition cited Article 372 of the Constitution, which provides for continuance of several existing laws and their adaptation even after coming into force of the Constitution.

Article 372 says: "Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in Article 395 but subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, all law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority."

Referring to Article 372, the petitioner said, "All the laws in force include not only the enactment of the Indian legislature but also the Common Law of the land which was being administered by the courts in India. This includes not only the personal laws -- namely the Hindu and Mohammedan laws -- but that of Indian Catholic viz. the Canon Law..."

 

With Inputs from Agencies

  

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • juliana, udupi

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    One cannot defend oneself by going against the constitution which is for all the citizens of the country and determine everyone equal. Church is for prayer and priests lead the way to heaven.

    DisAgree [2] Agree [2] Reply Report Abuse

  • Fredrick Correa, Pernal/Mumbai

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    The Church registers all its marriages under civil law. Hence before it gives annulments, it makes it compulsory for the couples to get divorce from the court. So there is no question of recognising or not recognising an annulment by the Supreme Court. The civil divorce comes first before the annulment. Please do not complicate issues. The real issue for the Christian couples is that while other communities get divorce after one year of separation, the Christian couples have to wait for two years. This need to be amended by the government.

    DisAgree Agree [4] Reply Report Abuse

  • Jossey Saldanha, Mumbai

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    Is Dharmendra & Keumaraswami's second marriage valid ...

    DisAgree [6] Agree [10] Reply Report Abuse

  • KRPrabhu, Mangalore

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    ದೊಡ್ಡವರ ವಿಶಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಗೆಲ್ಲಾ ಮಾತನಾಡಬಾರದು...
    ನಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನು ದೊಡ್ಡವರಿಗೆ ಪಾಪದವರಿಗೆ ಓಂದೆ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲಾ...
    ವಿಶಯ ಅಂಚ ಉಂಡು...

    DisAgree [2] Agree [14] Reply Report Abuse

  • NN, Mangalore

    Sat, Jan 21 2017

    In the case of Kumaraswamy and Dharmender, the law allows them to marry again with the written permission of first wife. I am sure before giving the permission, the wife makes sure everything is taken care of i.e child custody, alimony, visitation, property division etc. Marriage and divorce is a personal matter and government should not interfere unless one of the spouse complaints. Government should make sure the family is taken care of financially before getting married again. Why one has to leave her/his spouse, if both love each other and their marriage is happy and satisfying? Sometimes two people are not meant for each other and no one has to suffer for rest of his/her life for the serious faults of others. (When I say serious means infedelity, mistrust, health problems, incomparibility, desersion, mental and physical cruelty etc.) We have only one life to live in this world and the society has to understand it. Fifty percent marriages are end up in divorce in western countries but rest assured that remaining 50% live happily. How many unhappy couples in Indian society just living a miserable lives because the society look down upon them, if they go for divorce. We need to be civilized and do the right thing for ourselves without any pressure from the so called moral police.

    DisAgree Agree [1] Reply Report Abuse

  • The Guru, Mangalore

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    Jossey Saldanha, Mumbai

    Forget about others, first take care of your community.. Appeal for Uniform Civil Code, all those getting married 3 to 4 times will come to and end irrespective of religion..

    DisAgree [2] Agree [9] Reply Report Abuse

  • Thomas Saldanha, Bangalore

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    Law of the land is supreme, we Christians should welcome this move. Even though the Catholic church is following strict guidelines as per Cannon law, when it comes to uniform civil code we have to accept the law of the land.

    DisAgree [2] Agree [37] Reply Report Abuse

  • NN, Mangalore

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    Does ecclesiastical Tribunals have any authority to decide the child custody, alimony, visitation, child support and property division? If not, civil divorce is required. Church can only declare the marriage is null and void and that does not solve all the problems. Ecclesiastical tribunals in the USA require a civil divorce decree before it considers the petition for annulment of marriage which is just and right. Separation of Church and State is democratic principle. India needs a common civil code and all the marriages are required to be carried out by the Registrar of Marriages.

    DisAgree Agree [19] Reply Report Abuse

  • joegonsalves, Mangalor

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    Chevalier Clarence Pais after much deliberation had filed a Petition in Supreme Court that in the case of Catholics, an annulled marriage - annulled by The Catholic Church should be taken as the final judgement. His observations are very valid. If in the case of other religions, if the marriage is dissolved by a decree by their religious customs and beliefs, why should Catholics be discriminated. It is pertinent that the judgement be reviewed and that uniform law prevails with regard to upholding an annulment by The Catholic Church.

    DisAgree [9] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • Ramesh S, Mangalore

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    We are heading towards common civil law. Very recently Andhra Pradesh high court ruled that divorces declared by qazis of mosques are illegal and there is no legal binding. Court ordered state govt to stop these qazis from giving talaq judgements.

    DisAgree Agree [20] Reply Report Abuse

  • Clifford Fernandes, Toronto

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    In some countries and in Goa (India), the marriage in Marriage Registrar's office is compulsory, before the Roman Catholic Church conducts the Sacrament of Marriage. Under such circumstances, it is but natural, the Govts insist on Court Divorce. In India, the marriages of Hindus, Christians and Muslims conducted in temples, churches and mosques, without this registration are valid, but to safeguard the overall interest of parties concerned, except Muslims, the court divorce is made mandatory. I think it is fair enough.

    DisAgree Agree [18] Reply Report Abuse

  • Santan Mascarenhas, Kinnigoli/Mumbai

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    This petition was filed by a citizen and not by Catholic Church. Present day fights and misunderstanding among couples is on the rise. Any way, Church says there is no divorce in the Church, but, it is annulment. With this background, the status quo maintained by SC is to be appreciated.

    DisAgree Agree [14] Reply Report Abuse

  • Mangalurian, Mangaluru

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    I think the petitioner was extremely unwise in citing the Article 372 of the Constitution of India in the defense of his petition.

    Article 372 of the Constitution says, inter alia:

    Quote

    372. Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation

    (1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in Article 395 but subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority

    End of quote

    Note carefully the words "until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority".

    These words clearly intend "all the laws" to be Government (of Indian union or provinces or territories ruled by Indian princes) legislation - as they might eventually be altered/repealed by the Government ("competent Legislature").

    Nowhere does the Article 372 include/imply "Personal" laws implemented by a non-Government body as part of the "all the laws".

    In my opinion, instead of pointing out the complete incompetence, the petitioner has wasted the time of the Supreme Court.

    DisAgree Agree [2] Reply Report Abuse

  • Mangalurian, Mangaluru

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    Once upon a time, there was no written law in many countries where Christianity spread.
    Hence it seemed proper that Christians make use of the articulate Cannon Law (BTW, the word Cannon comes from Arabic which also means Law - qanoon/pl. qawaneen).

    But times have changed. All countries have clear laws on most matters.

    Many Europoean countries, including the predominantly Catholic nations of Italy and Ireland, have civil laws for divorce - which all citizens must comply with.

    So why in India do we need multiple sets of law? Especially when it comes to divorce and separation of assets?

    The priest class, always in the quest of seeking greater power in social life, must learn how to separate "God and Caesar" in all its dealings. It is a shame that a layman took this matter to court defending the priests.

    The Church must proactively withdraw the use of the Cannon law in everything where there are civil laws available. Absolutely no excuse.

    Regardless, men must not marry a woman who is under 40 years of age! No quarrels, no complaints, and no divorce!

    DisAgree [3] Agree [12] Reply Report Abuse

  • Rajesh, Udupi

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    When jallikattu, dahi handi etc were banned, you were all fine with supreme court.. now it comes to your own matter, you feel court is moving towards rss ideology?… what a hypocrisy. One country one law… that’s the need of the hr.

    DisAgree [2] Agree [19] Reply Report Abuse

  • Rajesh, Udupi

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    so sorry dear, this was in response to SMR, Karkala and not for your comment!

    DisAgree Agree [9] Reply Report Abuse

  • SMR, Karkala

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    Supreme court of India seems to very much interested in the family matters rather than the social issues pertaining to woman of India.

    Interestingly Justice D.Y. Chandrachud who favoured using religious in politics and voted is one of the jurist.

    In a written reply in Lok Sabha, Women and Child Development Ministry Maneka Gandhi said a total of 24,771 dowry deaths have been reported in the country in past three years.Over 34,600 cases of rape have been reported across the country last year with Madhya Pradesh and Delhi topping the infamous list of states and union territories respectively reported across India last year, statistics released by the country's National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)."Every day around 2,000 girls are killed in the womb or immediately after birth in India," a UN report says the daily number is around 7,000.

    Instead of bridging the broken heart, Supreme Court of India is slowly leaning towards the RSS polysis through its like minded judges. As passing day SC is preparing a ground for pre launch of 'Uniform Civil code' against constitution of India.

    Jai Hind

    DisAgree [17] Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Arnold, Mumbai

    Fri, Jan 20 2017

    Always law of country higher than religion. It was practiced 2000 ago. Even today church is giving annulment only I you have divorce from Civil court.
    Even in civil court follow similar procedure but also spouse has the right to demand alimony which church court denays.
    So law of country is higher than personal law in all respect.

    DisAgree Agree [15] Reply Report Abuse

  • Fredrick Correa, Pernal/Mumbai

    Thu, Jan 19 2017

    Every Christian marriage is duly registered under civil law and hence before the Church grants an annulment it makes it compulsory to obtain a divorce. So there is no need for any change in the act as civil divorce comes before the annulment.

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • peter, Brahmavar

    Thu, Jan 19 2017

    Civil marriages are valid. But court divorces only valid. British made laws and we copied whichever convenient to us and amending according to politicians need.

    DisAgree [13] Agree [23] Reply Report Abuse

  • Valerian Dsouza, Udupi / Mumbai

    Thu, Jan 19 2017

    From the verdict of the Hon. court, it seems India may be moving towards common civil code.

    DisAgree [7] Agree [30] Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title: Divorce decree by church not valid, can't override law: SC



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.