LAKSHMI SANYAL Vs. SACHIT KUMAR DHAR AIR 1972

Author: Nikhil Baren Das, Xavier Law School, XIM University, Odisha.

BACKGROUND FACT

The case includes an offer against a judgment from the Calcutta Tall Court concerning the marriage between Lakshmi Sanyal (the appealing party) and Sachit Kumar Dhar (the respondent). The case's background is as stated below:

Marriage and Relationship History

Lakshmi Sanyal and Sachit Kumar Dhar were related to begin with cousins, with their moms being genuine sisters. Sometime recently after their marriage, they engaged in a sexual relationship, which led to Lakshmi's pregnancy. Their marriage was solemnized on January 30, 1960, after both parties converted from Hinduism to Christianity. They were hitched concurring to Christian laws, specifically under the Roman Catholic Church.

Children and Separation

The couple had two daughters: the first born on May 10, 1960, and the second in October 1961. In 1965, Lakshmi cleared out their home and filed for divorce in July 1961.

Legal Claims

In her appeal for divorce, Lakshmi affirmed that her marriage was both invalid and void. She claimed that she was coerced into marrying Sachit due to her pregnancy and that neither her father's nor her guardian's consent was obtained, violating Section 19 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, of 1872. Also, she argued that their marriage was invalid due to being inside the precluded degree of relationship.

High Court Ruling

The trial judge dismissed Lakshmi's affirmations, concluding that both parties willingly entered the marriage out of love. The High Court ruled that parental consent was not essential under Section 19 since an authorized church minister conducted the marriage. Even though there were consanguinity issues (as they were second cousins), this could be dispensed with by church authorities, hence validating the marriage.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's administering, expressing that complaints regarding minority and lack of consent did not invalidate the marriage under Canon Law or relevant Indian statutes applicable to Christian marriages. This case highlights significant legal considerations regarding assent, religious conversion, and familial relationships within the context of matrimonial law in India.

ISSUES

In this instance, two points were brought up. The appealing party was a minor when she got married without her father's or guardian's approval, so the first question was whether the marriage was legal. The second question concerned whether the parties' relationship was within the forbidden range, in which case Section 19 of the Divorce Act would apply.

First Issue Analysis: Validity of Marriage

• In analyzing the primary issue, it was contended that the assent of the father or gatekeeper had not been obtained some time before the marriage, as per Segment 19 of Portion III and Area 44 of Portion V of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, of 1872.

• Segment 3 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act characterizes a minor as an individual who has not come to the age of 21 for a long time, whereas Segment 19 and Segment 44 require the assent of the father or gatekeeper within the case of a minor.

• Be that as it may, the court alluded to the case of Rev. Father Caussavel vs Rev. Saurez, (1869) ILR 19 Frantic 273, where it was held that Portion III, containing areas from Segments 19-22, is as it were pertinent to authorized priests beneath this act.

• The court is too famous that indeed in case the arrangements of Segments 19 & 24 were considered to have been breached, there's no arrangement pronouncing the marriage invalid & void; it as it were given for corrective arrangements.

• As Portion III was regarded as inapplicable due to the case of Rev. Father Caussavel vs Rev. Saurez, the court considered Area 5(1) of the Christian Marriage Act.

• This segment states that any individual who has gotten an episcopal appointment and has solemnized it agreeing to the rules, ceremonies, ceremonies, and traditions of the Church of which he could be a Serve can solemnize the Marriage.

• The court concluded that Section 5(1) would be applicable which the Canon Law should be considered within the case of the minor. Canon 1067 of the canon laws specify that a male must not enter into a valid marriage before reaching the age of 16, and a female must not do so before reaching the age of 14.

• In any case, there was no provision prohibiting the marriage of a minor without the consent of the father or guardian.

Under canon laws, the court decided that the appellant's age (less than 21) and the absence of her father's or guardian's consent precluded the marriage from being deemed Null & Void.

Second Issue Analysis: Prohibited Degrees of Consanguinity

Regarding the second issue, the court determined that the customary law ought to be considered to find out whether the parties were inside the denied degrees of Relationship. Since the parties were married according to the customs and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church, their law ought to be considered.
Also, it was noted that neither the Indian Divorce Act nor the Indian Christian Marriage Act defines which relationships are inside the Prohibited degrees.
Referring to the case of V.H. Lopez vs R.J. Lopez, (1885) ILR 12 Cal 706, it was held that the marriage may as it were be prohibited if the customary law of that church, to which the parties had a place, prohibits it. Moreover, on the off chance that the allotment is granted, the individuals are eligible for marriage.
Therefore, in the V.H. Lopez Case, the Court considered all the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, known as the Canon Laws, when deciding this case.
The rules about the degrees of consanguinity that are forbidden are outlined in Canon 1076 of the Canon Law. It makes clear that predecessors and relatives cannot get married. It is void to the third degree within the collateral line. The dispensation rules are also described in Canon 1052 of the Canon Law.
It recommends that an agreement can be reached from the relevant church specialists within the event of connection of the moment degree because it was on this occasion. The allotment is as it were not conceivable within the case of a first-degree obstacle, which is a through-and-through boycott.
The case of H.A. Lucas vs. Theodoras Lucas, (1905) ILR 32 Cal 187, established that the courts don't bar Roman Catholics residing in Indian domiciles who have gotten the specified agreement from marrying individuals whom they are legally prohibited from marrying.

The court found that marriage between parties with second-degree consanguinity is deemed unnecessary under Canon Law. The parties shall not be deemed to be within the precluded degrees after receiving dispensation. Because of this, Section 19(2) of the Indian Divorce Act will not apply following dispensation, and no judgment based on Section 19 of the Divorce Act regarding the nullity of the marriage may be used.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioner's Side (Lakshmi Sanyal)

Key Arguments:

1. Lack of Consent: The petitioner argued that she was a minor at the time of the marriage and had not given her free and informed consent.

2. Parental Consent: The applicant claimed that her father's consent had not been obtained for the marriage, as required by the Indian Christian Marriage Act, of 1872.

3. Prohibited Degree of Consanguinity: The petitioner contended that the marriage was void as the parties were within a prohibited degree of consanguinity (to begin with cousins).

4. Fraud, Coercion, and Undue Influence: The petitioner alleged that the respondent had used fraudulent means, constraints, or undue influence to induce her into the marriage.

Legal Basis:

Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872
Indian Contract Act, 1872 (regarding minority and capacity to contract)

Respondent's Side (Sachit Kumar Dhar)

Key Arguments:

1. Valid Marriage under Roman Catholic Law: The respondent attested that the marriage was valid under the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, which governed the marriage.

2. Dispensation for Prohibited Degree: The respondent claimed that an agreement had been granted by the Church for the impediment of consanguinity.

3. Consent and Capacity: The respondent contended that the petitioner was of age and had given her free and informed consent to the marriage.

4. Denial of Fraud, Coercion, and Undue Influence: The respondent denied the charges of extortion, impelling, or undue influence.

Legal Basis:

Roman Catholic Canon Law
Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (to the extent that it did not conflict with Roman Catholic law)

JUDGEMENT AND REASONING

On September 8, 1972, the Supreme Court of India issued its decision within the matter of Lakshmi Sanyal vs. Sachit Kumar Dhar, which addressed the legitimacy of the couples' marriage as well as Lakshmi Sanyal's charges of compulsion, consent, and consanguinity.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the marriage of Lakshmi Sanyal and Sachit Kumar Dhar. The court concluded that the marriage was not invalid and unlawful, notwithstanding Lakshmi's claims about her minority, lack of consent, and prohibited degrees of consanguinity.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the marriage, finding that:

• The marriage was governed by Roman Catholic law, which had granted a dispensation for the prohibited degree of consanguinity.

• The petitioner had not proven that she was a minor at the time of the marriage or that her father's consent had not been obtained.

• There was no evidence of extortion, impelling, or undue influence on the part of the respondent. The Court emphasized the significance of recognizing the validity of marriages performed under different religious laws, provided that they comply with the fundamental principles of law and public policy.

Reasoning

Consent and Minority: The Court decided that Section 19 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, which needs parental approval for minors, did not apply in this case. As the marriage was since the marriage was solemnized by a priest competent under Section 5(1) of the Act, parental consent was not necessary. The Court noted that there was no evidence of extortion, constraint, or undue impact in getting Lakshmi's assent for marriage. The declarations demonstrated that she had readily locked in within the relationship and sought to marry Sachit.

Prohibited Degrees of Consanguinity: The Court acknowledged that Lakshmi and Sachit where to begin with cousins, which typically falls within prohibited degrees of consanguinity. However, it was established that they obtained a dispensation from the Roman Catholic Church to marry, subsequently validating their union under Canon Law.
Religious Conversion: The Court recognized Lakshmi's conversion to Roman Catholicism sometime recently after their marriage. Her baptism on January 29, 1960, one day sometime recently their marriage, was deemed valid, asserting her status as a Roman Catholic at the time of marriage.
No Evidence of Cruelty: The allegations made by Lakshmi concerning Sachit's cruelty were also dismissed due to a lack of substantial evidence. The Court found no basis for claims of mental or physical abuse during their relationship.
Consent was unnecessary: The Court stated that there was no evidence of fraud, coercion, or undue influence in gaining Lakshmi's permission to marry. According to the testimony, she freely entered into the relationship and intended to marry Sachit.
Prohibited Levels of Consanguinity: The Court agreed that Lakshmi and Sachit where to begin with cousins, which is normally considered a prohibited degree of consanguinity. In any case, it was determined that they got permission from the Roman Catholic Church to marry, which validated their relationship under Canon Law.
Religious conversion: The Court acknowledged Lakshmi's conversion to Roman Catholicism sometime recently after their marriage. Her baptism on January 29, 1960, one day sometime recently they married, was recognized as legitimate, confirming her identity as a Roman Catholic at the time of marriage.
There's no evidence of cruelty: Lakshmi's complaints against Sachit's brutality were likewise disregarded owing to a lack of credible evidence. The Court found no evidence supporting charges of mental or physical abuse throughout their partnership

Personal Analysis

• The Vulnerability of Young Women

Lakshmi's situation illustrates how societal pressures and familial expectations can lead to vulnerable individuals being coerced into decisions that have lifelong consequences. It raises questions about the adequacy of protections for minors in matrimonial contexts.

• The Role of Religion in Law

The case represents how religious laws can intersect with civil law, often complicating matters of individual rights. Whereas regarding religious practices is essential, it is similarly important to ensure that such practices don't infringe upon individual rights or lead to misuse.

• Judicial Responsibility

The ruling reflects a broader judicial responsibility to adjust regard for religious traditions with the goal to ensure individual rights inside a modern legal framework. Courts must explore these waters carefully, ensuring that justice is served without undermining cultural values.

CONCLUSION

This case involved an appeal that the appealing party filed against the respondent to get an administration expressing that their marriage was void and a grant of permanent relief such as alimony. In this instance, the appealing party was underage when they got hitched and their relationship fell inside the forbidden range of consanguinity. The parties' marriage will not be regarded as void, according to the ruling of the courts. Considering that all rules about personal laws are founded on the conventions found in that particular religion. As a result, it would be improper for the courts to act against the prevalent customary laws in the community. Even though the parties were married by canon law, they were not legally married by the Indian Divorce Act or the Indian Christian Marriage Act since the father performing the marriage ceremony was a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Subsequently, it is unclear why these laws ought to apply to them. Since the parties were married by their customs, the court's decision to uphold the canon rules was correct.