Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Clarence Pais vs Uoi . on 19 January, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.57 OF 2013
CLARENCE PAIS ... PETITIONER(S)
VS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
2. The solitary prayer made by the petitioner through the instant writ petition is as udner :
“a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorary and thereby grant declaration that the Code of Common Law is the Personal Law of the Indian Christians and has to be recognized as such by the Courts (Civil and Criminal) in India and which would supercede any other law in conflict thereto and other accordingly.”
3. The afore-stated prayer is based on the following factual averment :
“It is respectfully submitted that Canon Law is the Personal Law of the Catholics of India and Canon Law has to be applied and enforced by the Criminal Court while deciding a case under Section 494 of the IPC and sanction of prosecution considered for alleged Bigamy of a Catholic spouse who has married after obtaining a Signature Not Verified decree for nullity of the first marriage from the Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2017.01.28 Ecclesiastical Tribunal.” 11:16:17 IST Reason:1
4. Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has invited our attention to the fact, that the issue raised by the petitioner for consideration of this Court, has already been adjudicated upon, and settled finally. In this behalf, he has invited our attention to the judgment, rendered by this Court in Molly Joseph alias Nish Vs. George Sebastian alias Joy [(1996) 6 SCC 337]. In the afore-stated judgment, this Court held as under :
“From a bare reference to the different provisions of the Act including preamble thereof it is apparent that Divorce Act purports to amend the law relating to divorce of persons professing the Christian religion and to confer upon courts which shall include District Court and the High Court jurisdiction in matrimonial matters. In this background, unless the Divorce Act recognises the jurisdiction, authority or power of Ecclesiastical Tribunal (sometimes known as Church Court) any order or decree passed by such Ecclesiastical Tribunal cannot be binding on the courts which have been recorgnised under the provisions of the Divorce Act to exercise power in respect of granting divorce and adjudicating in respect of matrimonial matters. It is well settled that when legislature enacts a law even in respect of the personal law of a group of persons following a particular religion, then such statutory provision shall prevail and override any personal law, usage or custom prevailing before coming into force of such Act. From the provisions of the Divorce Act it is clear and apparent that they purport to prescribe not only the grounds on which a marriage can be dissolved or declared to be nullity, but also provided the forum which can dissolve or declare the marriage to be nullity. As already mentioned above, such power has been vested either in the District Court or the High Court. In this background, there is no scope for any other authority including Ecclesiastical Tribunal (Church Court) to exercise power in connection with matrimonial matters which are covered by the provisions of the Divorce Act. The High Court 2 has rightly pointed out that even in cases where Ecclesiastical Court purports to grant annulment or divorce the Church authorities would still continue to be under disability to perform or solemnize a second marriage for any of the parties until the marriage is dissolved or annulled in accordance with the statutory law in force.”
5. In view of the decision rendered by this Court, as has been extracted hereinabove, we are of the view, that the instant writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Ordered accordingly. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
..................CJI.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR] ....................J. [Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi;
19th January, 2017.
3
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL(W)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).57/2013 CLARENCE PAIS Petitioner(s) VERSUS UOI & ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 19/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shuchi Singh,Adv.(Not present) For Respondent(s) Mr. N.K. Kaul,ASG UOI Mr. R. Balasubramaniam,Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar,adv.
Mr. Ananya Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Sanyat Lodha,Adv.
Mr. M.K. Maroria,Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.
Mr. Santosh Paul,Adv.
Mr. Piyush Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Joseph Aristotle,Adv.
No.3 Ms. Manju A. Pattiyani,Adv.
Mr. Manjo V. George,Adv.
Mr. Prasanth Kulambil,Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj,Adv.
Nos.4-9 Dr. M.P. Raju,Adv.
Ms. Mary Scaria,Adv.
Ms. Tenima Arora,Adv.
Ms. Lorigen Ovung,Adv.
Mr. Dhiraj Philip,Adv.
Mr. P. George Giri,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey,Adv.4
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The writ petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(Sarita Purohit) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Signed order is placed on the file) 5