- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Esther Marie Jackson (Petitioner) v. Frederick Ormond Layland Jackson (Opposite Party).
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a suit by Esther Marie Jackson for a declaration that her marriage with Frederick Ormond Layland Jackson is null and void. The parties, both Christians, were married in Allahabad on 12 January 1910. The respondent had previously been married; a decree nisi for dissolution had been obtained in the Calcutta High Court and made absolute on 6 December 1909. The respondent believed that, upon the decree being made absolute, he was free to marry again and assured the petitioner that all necessary formalities had been complied with. The court found it proved that the respondent's former wife was alive when the parties were married. The suit was decreed, a declaration was made that the marriage is null and void, and the respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner's costs.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner's marriage to the respondent is null and void because the respondent's former wife was living and that former marriage was then in force.
- How Sections 19 and 57 of the Indian Divorce Act apply to a remarriage following a High Court decree dissolving a marriage — specifically, whether the "decree of a High Court dissolving a marriage" in section 57 refers to the decree nisi or the decree absolute.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Warter v. Warter | Construction that the “decree of a High Court dissolving a marriage” referred to in section 57 of the Indian Divorce Act is the decree absolute (not the decree nisi); and the principle quoted: “The Indian law, like our own, does not completely dissolve the of marriage until the lapse of a specified time after the decree. This is an integral part of the proceedings by which alone both the parties to the marriage can be released from their incapacity to contract a fresh one.” | The court followed this decision and held that the respondent's former marriage was still in force when he married the petitioner. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined Sections 19 and 57 of the Indian Divorce Act. It observed that section 19 allows a wife to obtain a declaration that her marriage is void where the husband's former wife was living and that prior marriage was then in force. Section 57 permits remarriage only after six months following a High Court decree dissolving a marriage (and subject to appeal provisions), and the court interpreted the phrase “decree of a High Court dissolving a marriage” to mean the decree absolute rather than the decree nisi. The court relied on the construction in Warter v. Warter (including the quoted passage about the lapse of a specified time after the decree) to conclude that the prior marriage had not been completely dissolved at the time of the parties' marriage. Finding it proved that the former wife was alive when the parties married, the court applied section 19 and declared the marriage null and void.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court declared the marriage between Esther Marie Jackson and Frederick Ormond Layland Jackson to be null and void and decreed the suit. The respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner's costs.
Implications: The decision directly annulled the parties' marriage and imposed costs on the respondent. The opinion does not discuss broader implications and does not set out any new precedent beyond applying the cited authority.
Chamier, J.:— This is a suit by Esther Marie Jackson for a declaration that her marriage with Frederick Ormond Layland Jackson is null and void.
The parties, who are Chistians, were married in Allahabad, on the 12th of January, 1910. The respondent, who had been married to another woman, had obtained in the Calcutta High Court a decree nisi for dissolution of that marriage, and the decree had been made absolute on the 6th of December, 1909. He believed that on the decree being made absolute, he was free to marry again and he assured the present petitioner that all the necessary formalities had been complied with. I find it proved that respondent's former wife was alive when the parties were married.
On the above facts the petitioner claims to be entitled to a declaration that her marriage with the respondent is null and void.
Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act provides that such a declaration may be made at the instance of a wife on the ground that the former wife of the husband was living at the time of the marriage, and the marriage with such former wife was then in force. Section 57 of the Act provides that when six months after the date of a High Court dissolving a marriage have expired, and no appeal has been presented against such decree to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction of when any such appeal has been dismissed, but not sooner, it shall be lawful for the respective parties to the marriage to marry again as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by death. Provided that no appeal to His Majesty in Council has been presented against any such decree. There is no appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decree nisi for dissolution of a marriage (see section 56), therefore there can be no doubt that the “decree of a High Court dissolving a marriage” referred to in section 57 is the decree absolute not the decree nisi. The section was construed in this way by Sir James Hannen in the case of Warter v. Warter, where one Taylor had obtained in the Calcutta High Court a decree absolute for dissolution of his marriage on the 27th of November, 1879, and the divorced wife was married to Colonel Warter on the 3rd of February, 1880. Three days later Colonel Warter made a will in favour of his wife. In April, 1881, on the advice of a solicitor, Colonel and Mrs. Warter were re-married at a registry office. Colonel Warter having died without re-executing his Will or making another the question arose whether the marriage of April, 1881, revoked the will. It was held that the marriage of February, 1880, was null and void, and therefore the marriage of April, 1881, was valid and revoked the will. Sir James Hannen said:—“The Indian law, like our own, does not completely dissolve the of marriage until the lapse of a specified time after the decree. This is an integral part of the proceedings by which alone both the parties to the marriage can be released from their incapacity to contract a fresh one.” Following this decision I hold that the respondent's marriage with his former wife was still in force when he went through the form of a marriage with the petitioner.
I find on the issues that the petitioner professes the Christian religion, and that the marriage between her and the respondent is null and void.
I make a declaration accordingly. The respondent will pay the petitioner's costs.
Suit decreed.
Alert