Prabir Chandra Chatterjee v. Kaveri Guha Chatterjee Opposite Party., Calcutta High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The revisional application arises from a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the wife (opposite party) through a petition for divorce on grounds including cruelty and adultery. The petition was filed under both Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act. The marriage between the parties was initially solemnised according to Hindu rites and subsequently registered under the Special Marriage Act. The issue concerns the appropriate legal framework governing the divorce petition and the maintainability of the petition filed under both statutes. The revisional application challenges the trial court's handling of these points.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petition for divorce can be properly filed under both Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act when the marriage was solemnised under Hindu rites and later registered under the Special Marriage Act.

Whether the certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act was one of registration under Chapter III or a direct solemnisation under Chapter II, and the legal effect of such classification.

Whether the petition “does not disclose a cause of action” under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code due to the amalgamation of sections from both Acts in the petition heading.

Whether the court ought to have tried the maintainability of the petition as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The certificate granted under the Special Marriage Act was not a registration certificate under Section 16 (Chapter III) but a certificate under Section 13 (Chapter II) for direct solemnisation, which is impermissible for a marriage already solemnised under Hindu rites.

The petition’s labelling under both Acts creates confusion and renders the petition defective for not disclosing a cause of action under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The court should have decided the maintainability of the petition as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, as the issue related to jurisdiction or a legal bar.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments from the respondent side.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the marriage and the legal effect of its registration under the Special Marriage Act. It noted that a marriage solemnised under Hindu rites can be registered under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act, which then deems the marriage to be solemnised under that Act. The court found that labeling the petition under both Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act was surplusage and did not affect the petition’s maintainability or the court's jurisdiction.

Regarding the certificate issued, the court observed that if there was a purported solemnisation under Chapter II of the Special Marriage Act after an earlier valid Hindu marriage, such solemnisation would be legally ineffective, and the original Hindu marriage would remain valid. The court did not decide this issue at this stage but indicated it was likely a misunderstanding leading to the petition’s dual labeling.

The court rejected the submission that the petition did not disclose a cause of action, emphasizing that the petition clearly alleged grounds such as cruelty and adultery. It held that the court at trial would determine under which Act the marriage is governed and grant relief accordingly.

On the question of trying maintainability as a preliminary issue, the court referred to Order 14, Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and the 1976 Amendment, stating that such a preliminary issue can only be tried if it concerns jurisdiction or a legal bar. Since no jurisdictional question or legal bar was demonstrated, the trial court’s decision to leave the issue open for trial was proper and free from legal error or irregularity.

Holding and Implications

The court REJECTED the revisional application.

The direct effect of this decision is that the matrimonial petition filed under both the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act remains maintainable and the trial court’s jurisdiction is affirmed. The court did not set any new legal precedent but clarified the application of the law regarding marriage registration and the procedural aspects of preliminary issues in matrimonial proceedings.

Prabir Chandra Chatterjee v. Kaveri Guha Chatterjee Opposite Party.

A.M Bhattacharjee, J.:— This revisional application must be rejected as no jurisdictional issue, which alone can sustain such an application, appears to have been involved. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only two grounds in support of the revisional application and both of them appear to us to be without substance.

2. The instant application arises out of a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the wife/opposite party by a petition for divorce of her marriage with the husband/petitioner on various grounds like cruelty, adultery etc. The petition for divorce has been labelled as one both under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and S. 27 of the Special Marriage Act and the reason for the same appears to be that the marriage between the parties was first solemnised according to Hindu rites under the Hindu Marriage Act and was thereafter also registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. As will appear from the provisions of Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act, a Hindu Marriage or, for the matter of that, any duly celebrated marriage, other than one solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, may be registered under that Chapter and on such registration a certificate of marriage shall be entered under S. 16 of the Act in the Marriage Certificate Book in certain specified form. And once such entry is made, the marriage, howsoever celebrated earlier, shall thenceforth “be deemed to be a marriage solemnised” under the Special Marriage Act because of the provisions of S. 18 of the Act. In that view of the matter, if the marriage of the wife/opposite party with the husband/petitioner, though celebrated and solemnised according to Hindu rites, was thereafter duly registered under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act, the present matrimonial proceeding shall be governed by S. 27 of the Special Marriage Act and not by S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. And in that case labelling the petition under S. 27 of the Special Marriage Act as one “under S. 13, Hindu Marriage Act” also was useless surplusage, which, at any rate, cannot affect the maintainability or the merit of the petition for divorce, nor the jurisdiction of the Court to grant divorce, if any case therefor is eventually made out at the trial.

3. Mr. Chatterjee has, however, urged that the Certificate that has been granted in this case under the Special Marriage Act is not one of registration under S. 16 of the Act of a marriage already celebrated earlier under Hindu rites, which Certificate should be in the Form specified in the Fifth Schedule of the Act; but it is a Certificate under S. 13 of the Act in the Form specified in the Fourth Schedule in respect of a direct solemnisation of a marriage under Chapter II of the Special Marriage Act. A marriage validly solemnised under any other Form cannot, so long it continues, be again solemnised under Chap. II of the Special Marriage Act. It can, as already noted, only be registered under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act though on such registration, as stated earlier, the marriage shall thereafter be deemed to be solemnised under the Special Marriage Act. A solemnisation under Chap. II of the Special Marriage Act of a marriage already duly celebrated and solemnised under another Form, as distinguished from its subsequent registration under Chap. III, would, as it cannot but, be of no legal effect and significance, and in such a case, the earlier marriage duly solemnised in some other Form would continue to be valid and effective as before. We do not, as we need not, decide here at this stage as to whether the earlier marriage between the parties, was only registered under Chap. III of the Special Marriage Act or whether there was also a purported solemnisation of the marriage between the parties under Chap. II of the Act. But we would only add that such purported solemnisation, if there was any, would have been entirely an exercise in futility and in that case the earlier marriage celebrated under the Hindu rites would be the only marriage for consideration. All these, we are inclined to think, might have led the wife/opposite party and/or her legal advisers to label the petition as one both under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and S. 27 of the Special Marriage Act.

4. But, we however, have not at all been able to understand the submission made by Mr. Chatterjee that because of such amalgamation of the sections of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as the Special Marriage Act in the heading of the petition, the petition “does not disclose a cause of action” within the meaning of O. 7, R. 11 of the Civil P.C to warrant its rejection thereunder. The petition apparently discloses a cause of action for divorce on the grounds of acts of cruelty, adultery etc. and if those allegations are proved on evidence at the trial, it would be for the Court to grant appropriate relief under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act, by which the marriage in question would appear to the Court to be governed.

5. For the reasons as discussed hereinbefore, we also do not find any substance in the other submission made by Mr. Chatterjee that the Court ought to have tried the question as to the maintainability of the petition for divorce filed by the wife/opposite party as a preliminary issue. Under O. 14, R. 2(2) of the Civil P.C as amended by the Amendment Act of 1976, the Court may try and dispose of an issue of law as a preliminary issue only if that issue relates to — (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. As already indicated, we have not been able to discover any question relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to be involved in this case. And we have not also beep able to find, nor Mr. Chatterjee has been able to show any legal bar to the present petition under any law that we know of. At any rate, it appears from the impugned order that the learned trial Judge has left the issue open for consideration at the time of the trial and we are satisfied that, in doing so, the learned Judge has neither failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him nor has exercised the same illegally or with any material irregularity. We accordingly reject this revisional application.

Ajit Kumar Nayak, J.:— 6. I agree.

Revision dismissed.

Civil Appln.

Prabir Chandra Chatterjee v. Kaveri Guha Chatterjee Opposite Party.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Prabir Chandra Chatterjee v. Kaveri Guha Chatterjee Opposite Party.

Comments