Marriage and Divorce - A Comparison Between Hindu and Canadian Laws
727 86 24MB
English Pages [862] Year 1972
Polecaj historie
Citation preview
For Reference NOT TO BE TAKEN
ao
FROM
THIS ROOM
Gx apnis ARWNERSUTATIS ioRUAEASTS
The University
of Alberta
Printing Department Edmonton, Alberta Ne
a
|
en
ote
BRUCE
PEEL
SPECIAL
UNIVERSITY
REQUEST
I wish
a photocopy
of
the
OF
FOR
COLLECTIONS ALBERTA
LIBRARY
DUPLICATION
thesis /)
LIBRARY
by
a
(author) entitled
The
copy
is
for
and research. and I will not mission of the the service of
bility
for
the
the sole purpose of private scholarly or scientific study I will not reproduce, sell or distribute the copy I request, copy any substantial part of it in my own work without percopyright owner. I understand that the Library performs copying at my request, and I assume all copyright responsiitem requested.
Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2023 with funding from University of Alberta Library
https://archive.org/details/Malhotra1972
THE
UNIVERSITY
MARRIAGE
A COMPARISON
OF
AND
BETWEEN
ALBERTA
DIVORCE:-
HINDU
AND
CANADIAN
LAWS
by RAJIV
MALHOTRA
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
TO
THE
FACULTY
FULFILLMENT OF
OF
GRADUATE
STUDIES
OF THE
REQUIREMENTS
MASTER
OF
FACULTY
EDMONTON,
FALL,
OF
LAWS
LAW
ALBERTA
1972
AND FOR
RESEARCH
THE
DEGREE
1
48
.7
ps”
Ce 7
|
. |
.
.
ih:
ora ae 7
-
»
a
YTICAVIMY GT RHIAFO ‘ATA : *. 7
;
7
-~;HOSOVIG GMA HOATATAM
:
;
QWAS MAIGAMAD GMA UCUIH MaaWTad YOe THA IOS A
dx0vEd
io sonsixeqxs
siT
ot wetyv s diiw bebbude
bos sgsitieM
tJesW sit to eomakrsqxs
sved o3 biee od vem skbnI ot notsssinistesW
to wel
od3
963
sid et yew Jedw al
to sosqmt siT
io cofssijatnimbs sat nsdw yrudnesd da@l oft to sfbbim os mot? boonsmmoo sisdT
.solistiekaimbA
[atisqmi siz o3 yew svsg yasqmod stbal tesa ona
gmtiqssxo abistt [fs ol ewsf od? to noljesinisj3esW to mssije ybsese 5 enw
é
Family
Law.
Though
non-interference process
of
the
in the
interactions
individualistic
in
weakened
extent
subjected
West,
though The
study
marriage
and
complicated
the
and
reference
II
III
are
out
last
of
their
the
to
with
two
and
and the
Contracts
VII.
other laws
study
are
to Marry
Quebec,
set
out
is
laws
VIII
Chapter.
ig
mark.
the
of
the
which
were
These
families
to
a
conditions
of
the
the
a
of
set
with
the
out
and
large
bars
further
series
various
law
of
are
I and
in India.
Chapter
of Marriage. of
Divorce
discusses
Chapter of
laws
Hindu
Contract
and
the
in Chapter
prevalent
Reliefs.
and
in
their
dealing
grounds
Chapter
India,
ideas,
details
context
The
of
attitude
and
social
one
The
Matrimonial
of
of
an
results.
parts:
personal
peoples
left
of
and
divorce.
adopted
culture
impact
Annulment.
VI
the
controls
extent
into
with
some
devoted
of
the
other
of Divorce
arise
to
to
in Chapter
outline
traditional
in
of
-nevertheless
contemporary
set
brief
the
their
IV deals
effect
Western
them
other
Chapter
out
with
is divided
V with and
laws
the
varying
administration
personal
character,
influences
and
British
are
the
IX gives
a
recommendations
Chapters
and
in
the
that
anatoteabeon bsidehugataekb sirey og seas Lithesona od besigs ow
,notgnizrsd somal +eagotnds brs awmbre4 a
ae) 4:72y
.omi? tisda
no esiueesyo
yrom Sid tebims Soitimuon gninimsxs od3 ao avaed. :
youve? aeifyl
.xM ot bobmejxe
965%g to saivoe
2t einsdt
s etsw - bedeiiduqey
“ee
te brow Istosqe A
-> (Ottis boa berletidug- appet hin reed }are
Istosqes eid to sev edd 190i ons abe ik .t .2@ .30@ od bos
.om 02 afont .
-yrsadil wel si3
to atsdmew
yd bas ,estbus2
lisie sdi
sjsubet)
aid mort wed ybati ao hE
yd om o3 nevig
io namie)
at
.sed
-bsgsiostggs
cay
sonsteieves SAT
.Wastiod
yidgin
jv
.20 xd .yssadhl
et ,dudoya
.-b .M .3M
aaw Tasy S47 tuordguo1dd soltisisqoos batd es'aebytG annh .2rM
qbae
eshtaed ,ore tonys1T .aiM to obsm sd teum adbicenm Isieeq?
.sidauleval
guiqui ci exuod bbo [ls js tuo 9m begied ,ybsibast Lutasbaow s gniad .alesdt Mohtstigent
seorlw
-Sldstubas
.6199)
,busitl
jesrasbh
yt lo tistb rAguot sid
ym of
axvod goof sit sham 4asmsgaiuosns
.ylisalt
=
'
bas giibnstersbas &
a) ;
4
‘at
;
a
s
TABLE CHAPTER [A]
I
THE
HISTORY
HINDU
(i)
(ii) (iii)
(iv)
LAW
Hindu
LAW
BEFORE
THE
CODIFICATION
Marriage
Hindu
[C]
WHO
[D]
SYSTEMS
iil}
THE
Family
CAUSES
Gil)
OF
Law
AND
ARE
the
HISTORY
British OF
Rule
CODIFICATION
HINDUS
OF
LAWS
Muslim
|Parsi,
ENGLISH
[F]
HISTORY
Canon
Lord
TO
NON-HINDUS
aw
Law
THE
OF
APPLICABLE
Law
(Christian
[E]
[G]
- A Sacrament
under
THE
Jewish
(ii)
TO MARRIAGE
Ideal
(iv)
(i)
RELATING
General
[B]
(i)
OF CONTENTS
Law CONCEPT
OF
MARRIAGE
MARRIAGE
IN
THE
32
WESTERN
oe)
WORLD
33
Law
Hardwick's
Act,
35
1753
Marriage
Act
1823
(iv)
Marriage
Act
1949
39
IN
CANADA
42
MARRIAGE
(i) (ii)
(iii)
LAWS
and
36
(iii)
1898
42
General Legislative Provinces
Powers
Legislature of Law Provinces
of
the
Dominion
and
46 Dominion
and
nine
Common
47 IV
slut datsisa ody tobsu wel ubatn (vt)
WOTTAOTIIGOD YO YAOTAIH SHT GVA 252a0AD
~~"
[a]
sie
Cie
RUGUIH SAA ONW [Dd] ‘
7
QUQUIH-MOM OT FIGADLIGIA QWAL TO eMuTave
[a]
;
:
wed mileuM
wal meiset+dd wed bexsd weld detwsL
A
66629
(£)
(EE) (5th)
= 104
(vk)
ADATAMAM TO TIHQWOD HELIOMS HT [8] ))
rs
CIAOW WAAT@AW SHT Al, AQATAAAM YO YROT2TH wei gone
[4] ve
(2)
E2\L .joA e'Adiwbvel brow
(EE)
Be8E bre eS8t 359A ogsi11EM
(HEE) o¢.
ONCE 45A ogebzieM Gwt) AGAMAD UI eWAL AOATAAAM
fareneD)
brs motnimeG odd to las
7
pou)
[9]
(2)
Sone or (hi)
Serres
>
yer,
Pag ©
[H]
NECESSITY
CHAPTER II
OF
CHANGE
IN
INDIA
CONTRACTS TO MARRY
[A]
INTRODUCTION
54
[B]
BETROTHAL IN INDIA
54
[C]
MARRIAGE BROKERAGE
OF.
[D]
ENGAGEMENT IN CANADA
58
[E]
REMEDIES
(i) (ii)
(iii)
OF
62
PROMISE
Damages
62
Seduction
64
Damages
and
Exemplary
Engagement
[F]
DOWRY
UNDER
[G]
MARRIAGE
Damages
66 68
Restitution
(v)
68
Ring
HINDU
SETTLEMENT
69
LAW
IN
CANADA
73
(i)
Ante
Nuptial
Settlement
US
(ii)
Post
Nuptial
Settlement
76
legislations
iT]
(iii)
CHAPTER
BREACH
Special
(iv)
[H]
FOR
Provincial
SUGGESTIVE
III
CONTRACT
[A]
REQUISITES
[B]
MONOGAMY (i) (ii)
Hindu
REFORMS
OF MARRIAGE OF MARRIAGE
78
82 82
85 85
Law
Canadian
Law
87
emed tei ba2Ga oo ealbite secs bas 2og
nobus set os
ea WALL fe
nia {}
Jasna Itia2 Nes iisoe
YY
Jnomoltis2 Istiqul t2o% (aR) . enohislaigel fstoatvert (£Ee)
'
saaiciraaial tm
[C]
CONSANGUINITY
(i) (ia)
[D]
(ii)
[E]
Law
Canad tan
Hinda
Law
Gii)
[F]
Gi)
[G]
Windu.
IV
Law
Canadian OF
THE
Hindu
Law
Law THIRD
PARTIES
(Ganadianulaw
CEREMONIES
AND
(1)
haw
(ii)
Law
AND SEEDY SUC Min GCARAG IED Yi
CONSENT
(i)
Law
Canadian
MENTAL
Gy
[A]
AFFINITY
AGE (i)
CHAPTER
Hindu
AND
Hindu
Canadian
MODES
OF MARRIAGE
Law
(a)
Marriage
by licence
(b)
Marriage
by Publication
(c)
Other
(d)
The
ANNULMENT
Modes
Ceremony
of
Banns
of Marriage
of Marriage
OF MARRIAGE
GENERAL
(i) Gir)
Hindu
145
Law
“Canadian:
146
Law
Vil.
wd BEE 7
= 7
CE)
3
72.
wad astbened ’ : ’
(k2)
» ae
ie
_
©
«|
wel ube
(i) _
wet neibane) (ei) Gr aes YTIOATAD JADIGYHS GMA JATHaM [a)
.
| |
re
EL
i” ‘ u
7
:
r
(£) , -
efi
wel wbatH
eff
wel metbsawo
tL
aayTAA MATHT Sit Yo. TMaaHOD []
Vii
'
:
Ser
obori
a:
a
:
(rk) i.
(2b)
-_
rn
GOATASAM FO 2H00M (MA 2aTMOMaREO £9) wel ubai
EET
vy
:
pl netbeneo yd sgetyaaM
Cs)
to soissotidud
Yd sgeitieM
td)
ageitist 26 asboM ysi30 4,
>
SasliziaM to ynomsis) sit %
:
6
;
ie
-
(fr) :
sonsotl
he
(5)
‘
‘
aft
anitsd
-
(FE)
ie.
_
ast
far
wed
wel mekbensd)
as
PET
iL
:
(9).
:
f
7
Page
[B]
DIFFERENCES
[C]
GROUNDS
(i)
Ci)
Gai)
(iv)
(v)
{[D]
ia)
ON WHICH
Invalid
Ceremony
Hindu
(pb).
Canadian:
Non
VOID
AND
YOIDABLE
MARRIAGES
149
IS VOID
153
of Marriage
153
MARRIAGE
(a)
153
Law
154
Law
156
age
(a)
Hindu
(b)
Canadian
156
Law
158
Law
Prohibited
Degrees
159
(a)
Hindu
Law
59
(bo)
"Canadian
Prior
Hindu
(b)
Canadian
Lack
of
(a)
Hindu
(b)
Canadian
iy)
Law
Existing
(a)
GROUNDS
(i)
BETWEEN
Marriage
or
160
Bigamy
160
Law
161
Law
163
Consent
ON WHICH
Impotency
163
Law
MARRIAGE
and
165
Law
168
IS VOIDABLE
168
non-consummation
168
(a)
Hindu
Law
(b)»
Canadian
Law
(c)
Defences
to the annulment
1D
Pregnancy by a man other at the time of Marriage
VII
than
for the
Impotency
IJ2
Husband
73
em
a
._ - &
P Fhe oe
“oc 7
-
=.
.
JEL *
vy
7
-
-
’
:
:
ntl
Panes
7
ao)
4
ymsgis
to sgsivis! 3h Jai _
.
Fi
1°
-
wet
1
a .
= a
7
Ts
7
* "
:
GLO
—
>
oO
; 2%
: : ‘ ©
u
Page
[E]
[F]
LEGITIMACY
OF
(ay
Hindy
Lew
(b)
Canadian
BARS
AND
(i)
Collusion
178
Approbation
178
Delay
180
(ii) (iii) (iv) [G]
CHAPTER
THE
174 Law
176
DEFENCES
178
or
Laches
181
REFORMS
HISTORY
ANCIENT
HINDU
[B]
DIVORCE
ALLOWED
[C]
STATUTORY
[D]
L8u:
OF
[A]
(i)
174
Estoppel
SUGGESTED
V
CHILDREN
THE
LAW
BY
CUSTOM
Doz
The
Indian
Divorce
(iii)
The
Special
(iv)
The
Hindu
Cie
188
190
LAW
(ii)
(ii)
DIVORCE
188
Converts
(i)
TO
LAW
The Native Act 1886
PERSONAL
RELATIONS
Marriage
Dissolution
192 Act
Marriage
Marriage
1869
Act
Act
LAWS
1954
1955
192
193 196 OF,
Muslims
197
Parsis
198
AIChrL Stans
[E]
CANADIAN
[F]
PASSAGE
199
LAW
THROUGH
199
PARLIAMENT
VEG
206
|
;
a
Wd
ror
Ch)
: stmt a
_
(a)
rae
2HOMMUAC | ana 2 nokeuliod -. Pare ‘
oer
;
.
PRE
Get
eariond 30, yoked (th) ;
rar
Fequesaw’ rg
a”
aMaOTSH asTeRONG
: to
ey
881 828i
. a .. AOMOVIC OT SMOTTAHA WAI HT YO YAoT2TH aHT ¥_ ASTIAHD :
WAI UaMIH risroney!
oer
MOTeN) Ye GHWONMA somata(8)]
ger ott ser
eel
,
. notsuloeesi@®
sgsitieh
WAX YAOTUTATE B
attoynod svitei
))
Ee
(4)
S8BE 0A
C08! Joh sotovid’ nstbnt sir (bE ae
RCL t9A seeitreM detsoq2 oft Cee UF
7
;
@2@f 35A sgaivisM what oHT (vk) =)
if
——
:
7
THSMAL IAT HOUORE
Iriv
Tee A
>
oe
efAttinesr
_
Page
[G]
THE PRINCIPLE GRANTED
The
'Matrimonial
(ii)
The
'Marriage
[A]
VI
IS AT
PRESENT
Fault'
Approach
Breakdown'
Approach
FOR
RAPE
220
Standard
(iii)
224
Reforms
ZZ
UNNATURAL
(1) ) Canadian:
(ii)
Proof
of
Suggested AND
211
219
DIVORCE
ADULTERY
(ii)
209
216
Summary
GROUNDS
(ir
[B]
DIVORCE
209
(i)
({ii)
CHAPTER
ON WHICH
Hindu
226
OFFENCES
226
Law
229
Law
Suggested
2350
Reforms
[C]
BIGAMY
Z31
[D]}>
CRUELTY
232
(i)
(ii
(iii) [E]
Definition
(ii) Gite
the
Concept
and Mental
of Cruelty
Cruelty
ENE) 233
(a)
Physical
(b)
Intention
239
(c)
Insanity
239 240
metest
Suggested
PERMANENT
(i)
and
BREAKDOWN
Gross Living
245
Reforms
Addiction Separate
Pesertionwand
247
OF MARRIAGE
to Alcohol and
Apart
4(1) (Ce) Gi) IX
or
Narcotics
4(1i)(e) (i)
248 249 2a
poe
a —
a MO HOTHW
[AO 8 ae
ra
7
pertee
ee Pree
tr iT7i ‘ qvobsea xt sass ae
am
erat side |
saat. TOROVIE HOT zane oy aa .
hs 17
—
-
x
‘rstrsak AL
ogs
ace
toortto busbasa2
a
_
aes
amtoish
|
ass bss
beseoague
/
Et) %
aa Md zTO SAROTARNU BAA is a wel eeksina) @
col
wall obotH (ex)
ess
betasggue
amtoteA
Hes
aut
tes
(
te) ©
uote [0] : y
qilouxd te 4qoon02 oft brs moigtnttsa
yaieux) etme
faq ;
7)
.
EES
,
yay
))
SES
ees
Z
:
_
(2) ih
;
bos laokaydt 7? nobsnsint
-
-
usw dobdw a63 gated eb .Syetsaae Holiecittistg [snea1sq Yol visvsm don tesol rigueds) .aage mere sj at bstiinasq eew avobiieto sgetrtemee
i:
TE 8 08 VE one :
|
|
|
Ef BSI athena =
7
iN,
on
the
have
system
taken
of batin’ sauce into
the
form
deceased
husband
approved
of
of
or
near
divorce
is
a wife
While
later
child
normal;
but
married
between
was
As
or
the the
great
a valid
married
was
to
result
of
an
5 exercised
be
primary
due
rule
was
not of
marriage
he
widow
was
burned
Once
the
castes
and
appears
bride
adult
12 years.
in all
was
concerned,
generally.
The
marriage
between
Ln
4D
the
of
in the
were
Hindu and
children the
Pees 1 volition. 9
of marriage
essential
was
requisite.
the
procuring
Promise
Hindu
that
law
the
which
bride
a girl
himself
who
having
required
should was
had
an
of
male
to marry
essential
be a virgin.
not
an
as
a virgin
irregular
and
alive
on
her
husband's
funeral
Purshotamdas
(1897)
AIR
21
[Bom],
If whom
connection
fire.
47
v.
of
became
Girls
parents
19
Purshotamdas
parts
to be common,
18 Matt,
Manu dis-
his
C7 The
her
an
binding.
formalities
a virgin,
in all
an
object
an
of
children.
with
husband.
arrangement no
brother
by repudiation
her
as
before
8 and
was
no
as
the
to
words:
marriage
far
of
capacity
Hindu
with
was
so
to
originally
in marriage."
enough
adult
seems
produce
to be one
from
ages
and
a lunatic
There
not
husband
physical
idiot
times,
widow
to
nor
given
common
This
In his
by sale is
marriage
themselves
the
issue,
of
the
therefore
F children
were
in Vedic
periods
in order
released
a maiden
marriages
the
is declared
Neither
only
of
remarriage.
husband
Wife.
India.
marriage
kinsman
and
"The
Infant
the
existence).
23.
condition
a Hindu he
knew
with
her
adape ‘of
ad
aid sit
[ stad: Sa ! : gh a noise 5” attw e o yon oas 32800 iomc ud yl do e3zeq
[is ot
edi Ai. ,nommos smsoed
bas
asdaes
Its at fguons
eisw eltid
ssw obfaid ods
.yilersgsg
28
Siew
.eontd
i
esssiaizam toaster
Sr bev al siraw
ys} oc sgsities blida
iivbs as soiled
meiblido ubalH lo sgsixzem ofT eft
nomiod
sd ot atheqqb sgsiitien jtivbe
,bants2109
Bis.
x ar
DS7
eltw
-etbnl
2bokysq yepal
as sew bardaini sdt jud A) oets “FSERE Fo neld, asitash cove >
9s
7
7
I The each
Mohammedans
sect
sub-sect
is
is
Muslim
are
further
divided
governed Law
is
connected
with
Generally
speaking
divided
(a)
own
considered
that
there The
of
(b)
into
by its
religion
into
are
sects
several
to
be
of
it
cannot
-
version
divine
readily
is
Sunnis sect
It
is
and
so
be dissevered
as
and
of Mohammedan
sources
regarded
and Each
origin.
traditional
which
Shias
sub-sects.
distinctive
four
Koran
two
of
the
intimately
from
this
very
law.
it.
law:
word
God.
Hadis,
i.e.
sayings
records
of
the
of Precepts,
Prophet;
and
actions
which
and
includes
reason.
(c)
Ijma,
that
is a concurrence
companions (d)
As
time,
a result
many
necessary
court.
of
Kiyas
The
are
analogical
a comparison
of
when
they
apply
Muslim
have
a present
theory
which
and
from
decisions for
of Mohommed
of
did
Law
being
been
day
not
Precedent
to
for
first
of
the
disciples.
three
derived
sources
a particular
Ree
in
India
for
such
by the
court
and
so
look
all
his
deductions
to
applied
rendered
lawyer
the
of opinion
beyond
practical
the
it
a
long
is
declaration
purposes
applies
not of
the
in
54 Malla:
Ibid
at
ob.
Mulla:
''Principles
a8
of Mohammedan
Law"
supra
note
53 at
VI
no.
53 at
70.
introduction
See
also
Fyzee:
"Outlines
of Mohd.
Law"
supra
and
VII
-
nana oA (es)
brew yaev edt 2s bébusget ei Joti
‘
et :
bik eanotins ,etqecs1% to abroos1 asbulont
dotdw
bas
;j5rgo1T
.9.f ,sibsh
sdi
io sgnkyse
oA
-
=e a
(d) ,
-Moasst
53
to dotniqo
Yo sonsrivones
6 ef Jsf3
.smpt
(5) ay a
-ealqtoeib eid bas bommodoM
to enoinmagqmoo
. bsvitsb esotune
anotjoubsb s91d3
I[sclgolson
gazii
siz
sis
notdw easyid
io noettsqmos
0% (b)
—s
ot
s mort ce
Oe aden reluotsisq
s o3 yiqaqs
gon
bib
veda
_
se dove
wot stbal
at
boiigqqs’ goted wel mtlewM
Sip
to jivest & aA 's -
Jom 2t Jt og bas Jxwoo sdt yd botebme+
-
osdw
4
gnol
| |
=
y
masd svar anciakosb ymsi ees
ada to notserelosb sis broysd dool o3 asywal Ysbh iase930 & FOR ccm at peilqqs esaoqiugq feokiogsq [is tot amusb90619 to yrosrs adT ‘saws |
££ :
BLis India
and
there
are,
practically,
on
all
points
authoritative
judicial
pronouncements.
Every contract
may
Muslim of
than
is
one
time.
presumed
husband
from
consanguinity
to
has
and
be
15 years.
a Muslim
with
man
a fifth
intermarrying affinity
who
have
can
have
wife
may
not
woman
as
is not
many
void
as
persons
is
to
a marriage
into
a
puberty
age
of
have
more
wives
at
a
irregular.
A Muslim
related
Such
The
four
but
enter
attained
cannot
intermarry.
fosterage.
can
guardians.
A Muslim
sects
puberty
by their
certain
or
attained
minors
in marriage
to different
or
him
is
by
is
irregular
and
WAOSEG!
Mohammedan special
that
rites
there
acceptance
two
male
proposal
Law for
husband. This
be
by or
on
and
There
behalf
who
pre-Islamic
of
must must
is very
is no of
prescribe
solemnization
acceptance Law
not
a proposal
Dene 3 | witnesses
peculiarity
the
does the
should
Mohammedan
of
who
Lunatics
but
belonging
prohibited
mind
contracted
The marriage
Muslims
TMOE
sound
marriage.
be validly
puberty
of
liberal
when
the
behalf in
and
in
upon
the
at
What
him
in
has
civilized
or
the
party and
and
Both
of
the
meeting. of divorce exercise
roots
concept
(1916)
is
its
hearing
by the
of
such
a right.
in the
past
history
of marriage
56 Or, one male and two female witnesses Kazi Siddique Hossain v. Salima Khatoom
any
is necessary
Mohammedans.
one
its
one
presence
the matter
Law
ceremonial
of
adult
expressed
the Mohammedan days
on
sane
specific
a marriage.
other
be
restraint
of
by or
the
be
any
43
I.A.
212.
was
8 OME v8In8 a> yIsoduq bontsdIe a8 ony balm bavoe to mi LeuM 5 viteduq bemistzs yon svsd ow
eronim bas aotisnul
.opsty rEin cy | e
to sgé sdy
.eneibrsvg
stem svsil jonms> & 38 esviw
uot
»telugstri
bos
rsiugotti
od3
diol
28 sved
bsdaisa
at sgsitism
al jaw
sho
s douc
eee
vtotetd
oam mblewM
al yditeduq
6 sud basdeurd 90 neda
bos sonsasiq
yd sorovib
Jnsietitb
SAy tIubs
sno
to setoxexs
teeq sf3 nt adoo1
ot gnignelied amkieuM
gatysiserrsint
.ogsisiec?
to y3initis
ro yitniugesendes
|
-btov jon
jon
vd Ineoqo1q
rt’ xsflto
edi
bos sasa
48 bszesyqxe
sda
to Ifisded no
bod tahoty
asaita Istosqes
sieds
teda
10 yd SomAtqsoos.
$d Saeed odw asazesosiw Ob tae ows sd jaum sonsiqeoos
nt {axvedtl
bas Leeogozg
yisv 2I ws! asbomasioM
2
B
att asi wad nebommsdoM bestitvto
x0
8 sd blyode
sia ot mtd noqu 3ntsxtes1
eew Sgsizism to tqsonon
mort
es0b wed mebommaroM
& io noltssthmeloe
to 4essism ond
embod
atsi1xs5
to tfisdied tro 10
.ensbommedoM
5 dove
oso
vam etose
enoatog
:
-tgiy
.2u59V¥V al ad o3 heidi
obtinesqe yne sdiszestq
-gniisem
oi
miLeyM A
.varteamustnt
ot
2a3t bas y3xsq to gaithSh
yd sgstirem at botost4n05 qibbiew ediysm
et jud btov ton at stiw di2tt s ditw ogsiism SdT
yas xo [stmomsis5 at yiseasson
nsmow
6&8 yosm
ek mifeuM A yd mid
rtons
sj
on at sishT
edi
—
‘
.basdedd
to ¢itrsiluesg etAT
aedw eysb oimslel-s1q off? Yo
y
' }
aa practically
deprecated the
this
essence,
remains
that
‘ his
and
main
upon
be
by a written
of
of
sound
mind,
document.
"The
of
the
these
who
f without
by the
frequent
to curb
relics
effected
a very
tried
‘ he desires
whenever may
and
was
structure
the
any Mohammedan
: wife
divorce
tendency
the
based
(divorce) or
absent
to
customs.
has
attained any
either
on
this
whatever
Islam
extent.
Law
old
pal g assigning
Commenting
some
Mohammedan
husband
law of divorce,
it
occurrence.
of
divorce
The
by orally
is
divorce
A talak
spoken
Fyzee
its utility
thus
may
57
cause.
in
still
result
puberty
position,
But,
words,
observes:
during
the past, was so interpreted, that it has become a one-sided engine of oppression in the hands of the husband. And almost everywhere, Muslims are making efforts to bring the
law The
Indian
improve
the
In is
well
parties
of
the
valid
notwithstanding the
Act,
has this the
the
that
ideas
not
yet
of social been
respect
due
able to
justice." to
the
do
anything
peculiar
political
complying
Indian
with
anything
Law
regarding
Marriage
personal its
to
Act
laws
1954
want
requirements,
the
contrary
intercommunal can
be
availed
to marry. will
in the
respective
parties.
''Principles
of Mohd.
Law''
supra
note
53 at
264-5.
58
Fyzeecond'Out lines. of Mohdt®
Law’,
“supra
note
53¥at
a25.
marriage on
if
A marriage
be regarded
a7
Mulla:
to
country.
special
by different
this
of
fact
settled,
governed
in
with
Law
under
laws
in
existing
Christian.
spite
not
Parliament
situation
circumstances
(41)
in accord
as
personal
:
=
eee,7.4 oe
ae,
yas
rte of
Lf13e sot0vlb to wad rik amntifobtad to es al aura jiveet siT
.amo3euo Bio seers
ea i lo soilless sid nogquE
somovib yam ytredug Senteiie esd ow .batm bavoe to nebonmedeM wae taut iets A
v2 -9eue> ye gninglees Juoditw estkesb orl revenony stiw ald
.ebiow medloge yIisto yd xsd3is 8¢. asvusaio gssvi efoktteoq
eis
bredeud sf
yd betse¥is od yam (s910vkb)
ao grtinsmmo)
gtitub ytiltau atk sevetedw
.jJnsmusob asttizw 8 yd 10
,sox0vkLb to wal eft”.
abd Jf Jads “padgrqteaat o2 esw ,teBq sft ni aolgastqqo lo ontyns bebie-amo 6 smoosd -yievs jzomis boA .lnsdeud sft to abasd edt edt gokid 94 a3totis gatoism sis emileuM eo taslw
" s5ttaut
Estsoe
Jo essbr d3kw broo55 at wsl
o4 gatdiyes ob of 5lds ad0d feskitlog
tsiiuoeq
isy ton asd
sia ot sub tosquo1t -YtInves
atti sid
toometited
askbal
at notseudite Mi
gntselxs
oat
aft svoxqmt
asonstemuotto
wed optsatydo (it) agsizism ti no
Isnummoossjat baltsve
egetvism
A
es bebusgsz
ed nso
.yxism
gaibisss1 AceL
03
sd Iliw
wsd asibst
309A sgeityeM
tasw ewsl
Istosge
Lanoaisq
,einsmettupa
taht
tos? sft sia
jnsisttib
to stige
,bsltszoe
:
Lisw jon ef
yd' bsareveg
ati Atiw gaitviqmos
ot .e*a
estsiaq
.JoA ekda, tebau ee
Isnosisq svitosqesx sd3 oi yxetimoo
oi
04 goidiyns gnthnsteisztwion
biisv je
-esisysq aaa Yo a
24. Apart
from
The
Indian
one
of whom
subject these and
the
The
Indian
not
of
be
the
the
is
Christian
Special
to
the
are
1872
Act.
Act.
The
net
law
prohibitions
result
under
of
is of
a Christian
Marriage
personal
persons This
between
solemnized
Christian
Act,
between
-
one
Act,
either under
of
the of
the
relevant. of marriage
a Christian Act
be
enactment
that
marriages
by the
not
another
under
Marriage
Indian
Marriage
is
a marriage
be valid,
solemnization
Marriage
that
intercommunal
special
are
there
solemnized
prohibited
parties
or
the
under
to
be
order
one
relating
of whom
in
whereas
under
laws
that
Act,
provides
can of
is
must
But
must
law
both
which
provisions
enactments
parties,
personal
or
the
Acts.
marriage
Act
Marriage
is a Christian,
non-Christian
these
special
Christian
to two
the
or
between
Christians
(read
with
persons,
is contained
Marriage
Validation
one
in
the
Act
leo Such
: a marriage (i)
shall
be
by any
; 61 solemnized
person
provided
the
having
episcopal
marriage
to
the
rules,
rites,
of
the
church
of
be
solemnized
ceremonies
which
ordination,
he
is
according
and
customs
a minister.
She
M.P. supra
Jain:
"A Comparison
note
53 at
of Laws
Relating
to Marriage
and
Divorce"
31.
60 The Act was not intended to regulate the substantive law of marriage among the Christians as to essentials. It only consolidated and amended the law for solemnization of a Christian marriage.
61 Sections
55465
J,.9
0b
the
Indian,
Christian
Marriage
Act
1372.
Yo divesi1 gon off
—
. 395A ogolt20itsagaed
ABRIatTD B Moswied eogsty1em eae to emo tebau bosiamatoe
ak et e m3oaq9
sd | bbLay ed o3 sabi0 nt 320m asi )
sd3 ,39A sgsts315M asttatxid ae tbat ant Tebay enstoily ua ‘ 39h seeds to tedats
to wal fenoe1sq eit yd beatdidorq ono ad:“Jon Yous ogetraam
sf3 xebms enoittdkdoxq
,30A sgsizieM Istnaga eds tehey .eoteteq oft
a
OS Sdeveter tom sig estsrsq ons to awsl isave1sq smo
,encetsy
msswied
sxysitism
to qotskseuuattos oF gubselsy wal sdAT
edj3 nt boatstaoo ai aastiatidd to astialadd s sxs to at mow Io ddod to 390A nottebtiisV sgstirsM dtiw bss)
8|8}=—
SV8I dA egeetria asiseladd optbal
08 (seat -
49 J ekanelbn ad Iisde «Nofisoibio
gatby0055 emoseu>
[sqoaziqs
bsstamsloe bas
gnivsd
od sgetizsm
ssinomsets>
,asiia
noeisq
ys
;
anc
sgstitem
is
,
se dove
yd (x)
eae eaactunie ,astur edt
of
-istainta s et sd dotdw io doxzuts sit to
sgbixitem to wsl ovitnetedue sit asaluget 03 bebaotnt. ton asw 394 brs aisbesrs oti ee aI Pa J ial mBijers oe an |
vee
a
.
25.
(ii)
by any
clergymen
provided
that
according
and
(iii)
to
customs
such the
of
(iv)
by or
the Church marriage
rules,
Ehe
by the Minister solemnize
of
in
the
be
solemnized
rites,
Church
of
of Religion
marriages;
of Scotland,
ceremonies
Scotland;
licensed
or
to
or
presence
of
a marriage
registrar;
(v) by any
person
of marriages Generally, be
a Christian
solemnized
The
certificate
intending a solemn
between
marriage
marriage 6 a.m.
between under
and
of marriage
has
licensed
appeared
to grant Indian
the
certificates
Christians.
Christian
Marriage
Act
shall
7 Ai
is not
issued
personally
until
before
one
of
the
the minister
persons
and
made
declaration;
(i)
that
he
or
impediment lawful when
she
of
believes
kindred
hindrance
one
or
both
that
or
there
affinity
to
the
said
of
the
parties
is no
or
marriage; is
or
other and are
minors;
(ii)
that
the
been
obtained
resident
consent
required
thereto
in India
or
having
by the there
law
is
authority
no
has person
to give
62 Indian Christian Marriage Act Section 10: Certain clergymen in this section may however perform a marriage between other
named hours.
;
¥ 7
oY
“=Ty yw tee
palais e 8 ?
e
a
oa
to ;bmeites2 to dort ots peeint La ;
x0 feogsivism ‘vsti
\
he -
ytiswetget
=° =e ae
Lanstintntd ketbar aoowsid segainsketo
1sbav sgelaren nstiekxdo 8 ,viisreas0
Som afioeisq sbem
sit io sno Lhaau ‘pada
bas tetelnim
sit ssoisd
ee
ey»
sOA) asisokiisses taetg ot baeractl coexeq yawd
Disde d0A ogetrieM settetato d+
eats
bs)
sepnsidn 8 to 8Df985%q edz at 20 xd (wi)
ton
{ bas .m.8 0 noswiad bostamaLos od sit
2b syskirsm Yo 9858283789
yi sdeatsq
Daten sae asd ogi ttm gntbnstat
yoobjetsloeb ameloa 5 of et sist xsdjo
tet
10 yitnattis
evvebisd side xo od jena (t) zo borbsid
io jimsmrbsqmt
bas :S3geizxem bisa ody o3 Sedasteeut Ivtwslt
ste 10 ei estiirsq oft to dtod 10 ono nettw ¢erontor
esd wal
odd
yd bettupsr
i
tnsano> siz jed2 (15)
4 2 : Sf tees cee “a moe isqom et sxsd3 x0 oioxed, bentudo sed
avig 03 ytbiodaus gnived stbnI mt tasbtest
.
he
ac a
ele
-
26.
such
After
the
solemnized to
in
the
certificate months
from
for
issuing
in
to
presence
the
The
the
witnesses;
of
marriage
at
a prescribed
to
presence some
(i)
any
stage
of
ages
years
(iii)
marriages
registered this
Act
marriages
faith.
to
between
persons
Christian
marriage,
Christian
from
to be
in
the
solemnized
of
the
prescribed
before
a marriage
parties
or
certified
case
of
be
more
wish
to
credible
parties
intending
within
is
the
two
fit
The
impediment,
which and
thinks
him.
procedure
each
should
recite
if:
to
be married
a man,
13
of a woman.
persons
presence two
has
a wife
or
some
one
contracting
of
the
the
a given
husband
deal the
As
Marriage
already
solemnization at
directly
least
with
circumstances
a marriage
can
each
and of
of the
formula.
Christian
of whom
person
witnesses
provisions.
with
not
of a licensed
credible
recites
its
deals
it does
the
is
is not
lawful
registrar
parties
case
under
primarily
Though
the
the
least
solemnized
according
ceremony
ceremony
besides
be
living.
parties All
and
may
the minister
solemnized
form
of
in the at
is
is no
16 years
neither still
Similar
there
the
marriage
witnesses
if
of
in
as
if marriage
issue.
The marriage
the
two
void
a marriage
the
ceremony
least
its
may
exceeds
(ii)
of
if a marriage
of
formula.
at
of
certificate,
form
becomes
date
according
the
such
a certificate
registrar.
solemnized
consent.
issues
of marriage
two
adopt
minister
according
adopt
a
and
Act
pointed
out
the
essentials
which
be deduced
be
above
registration
professes
the
must
Christian
of
disqualify from
the
of
a a
combined
bsditsee1q
ef stubsc0xq
uslimie?
$geltism & stetad bssiameloe sd ,Inomibeqmi iutwel
.oueel
adrRg
sit mor?
etftaow ows
zi sgsixzem 6 PE frees tis 8 gaiveet 102 on eft s1sdi
tt caer Sgsixzzsm oT
. thesekget
o2 dalw esftoieq sift dotdw yromexeo bas w1ot vas of yatbiocos bestamefoe sidtbs1s
attest
stom to ows
bivede
bos
estizeq si TRE
reijetgs1
€f ,a8m
sd ot
ai
sgsirrsm
aintbnasst estsxeq 6 160 9255
Sid
-Temow
beedeun
6 Yo sonses tq ods at 4qobs
to dose yoomex99 5d3 Yo 9gs3e omoe
bettistiss
betrram sd a2
sgetuzsm
to stiw
nt
sd3
6 esd emoatsq
edd
beansoil
aij
ak
& Io soneasiq
nevig
od Jeum t9A ogeiiseM ostdetadd svods juo bejiteq yvbesris aA
ows
seb
-eaolatveiq
(tk)
[fiste
sd3 ak (EEE)
tessi
s eeittoe1 sds
(hb)
arssy
silt to red3tem
to doss asgasniiw eldibs1> -5iumiot
oft
badtaseetq es
OL abs99ox9
-gaiwil
to bas soeisq
.elumio2
to esas
atssy
8 to ses
oAT
3A jeseeendiw
3s
esittaq bostnmeloe
esgstiism ILA
ett o3 gntbto.06
bosetebges
to nobigriatges bas ootsssiamoloe sf date eissbh xlbremi xq toA atiis
satseruld ont aanastotg jessl te mow to sno encaisq nsewted esguis2em
s 6
Ehieboes a Asiw yliost b “ip jor ee 3i dguorT Ww.
cern
.
co
ae Oe
or
:
ae
d : .
:
oye study
Thus
of
the
Indian
a Christian
Divorce
Act
enter
into
can
(i) he (ii) Christians
or
concerned, each
he does
cannot
affinity.
marry
There which
case
is not
have the
its
own
lunatic
in
far
prohibited
merits
Act.
alia
idiot; living.
degrees
so
Marriage
inter
or wife
India
the
if
or
prohibited
defines
Christian
marriage
a husband
enactment
expressly
Indian
a valid
within
on
the
impotent,
not
is no
is decided
and
of
as
consanguinity
the
Christians
degrees.
in accordance
are
Accordingly
with
the
general
down
that
principles. The does
Indian
not
validate
either
of
Tages
here
the
the
party
personal parties extent
only being
Christian
as
the
into
rendering
forbid
the
party
legal
but
null
personal
law
of
marriage
between
or
law
and
enter void
party
personal
law
her
to
into.
any
the
enter
religious
personal
The
personal
the marriage
ab-initio. which
The
relates
to
Christian
law
but
Act
- Section
88.
v.
Saldanha;
(1930)
I.L.R.
(Bombay)
301.
a party
must
absolute
64
Saldanha
of
"personal
to which
from
another
Act
to
term
either
provision
parties.
Marriage
(apart
one
63 Indian
The
forbids
with
the
applicable
community
law,
which
of marriage
into
lays
the
of
a nullity.
to
further
of marriage),
a contract
either
the
him
includes
form
it
ee
which
personal
This
to
enter
forbids
the
belongs.
to
marriage
parties
means
law
of
any
Marriage
any
of to
the the
must
not
hold
it
as
refers
to
the
impediments
to
not
any
seat
+ gakvil stis to. boda
290b af
Aone
(et)
7
oxs aabizabxdD ei0.aa 781 o2 atbal af inomtseneomei ssedT .yaknkRego vigatbios2A
yaeeugeb besidido1g
Iatensg of dite songbtoa08
SoA ott
ey
asntiobd yleza1qxs dotdw ,bearssne.
ni astrsm nwo adl ao boblosb et seo dose
3604 nwob aysl vod tx02
C0 5A ogsiarsM asisatydd
netball sd? ¥
ot ofdssifaqs wel {Isnoeisq sda dotdw sgstrrem yas sisbiisv dom esob Lanoetsq"
axs2 ofT
“one! '192ha of x90 to mid ebtdi0t
doisky o3 yiiavmmoes vis mott sit 9a3
tom
tyaqs)
to xedtts oJ
taum
sit
,wei Isnoatsq
ebidiot
wsAddns
vireq
abofgtis:
dotdw
sao Agtw
sasixssm
to
sd?
otploeds
edT ot
Isnoersq
esbulont to mot
.ytkldén
satslio1
of3
doldw
sied ad
.egaoisd 03
« ont
a5 wal
o3 ytxseq si
biov bas lun yaitsq
ysaeq sd3 Ismoateq
‘1e3a9 oF 2oi218q
5 +f goatzebroxs
teaco
.oliint
;
Lp! e
(O88 Had wie
'
7
30) age
is
where
and or
competent
the
contract
a wife or
may
have
cannot
her
Every shall,
marriage
contracting
not
have
The
enter is
the
proof
(iv)
There Jewish Under
amongst
the
the
breach
been
made
lifetime
of
other
their
will
Parsi
the in
be
fathers
Parsis.
and
and
husband
husband
until
although
one
by the
guardians
two
required the
there
he
or
other
relevant
having
taken
buscar.
Act,
she
to
1936,
by the said
priest,
they
shall
present
at
a registrar
the who
by him. to be given
requisites
is no
any
when
witnesses
to be kept
of
Divorce
be certified
certificate
certificate
Where
court,
guardian
A Parsi
or
signed
or
the
itself
¢
wife
thereof,
in a register
that
his
Marriage
shall
send
of marriage,
3 70 faith.
21 years,
then
promise
Henakiwe
by a competent
the
of
of
by the minor's
the minor's
certificate
age
not
for
solemnization
or
register
for
certificate
evidence
is
by the
a valid
and
no
admissible
entry
as
Law
is no
marriage these
is
marriage
Jewish
under
certificate
priest
marriage of
the
to be noted
officiating marriage
The
priest
the
the
to any
the
parties,
completed
marriage.
It
on
priest.
the
in
for
is dissolved
marriage
immediately
has
and
a convert
Parsi
officiating
would
behalf
remarry
become
a suit
of marriage
on the minor's
his
in
to maintain
statutory in
India.
circumstances
law It
of marriage is
a few
the
and
divorce
customary
decided
cases
law are
applicable
that
is
given
to
applied.
here.
69 Freny
Engineer
Kumud
Desai:
1964)
at
v.
Shapurji
Modi
(1937)
39 B.L.R.
486.
70 "Indian
Law
of Marriage
and
Divorce"
161.
Rt Bal
Awabai
v.
Khodadad,
(1936)
22
Bom.
L.R.
913.
(Bombay)
(1st
ed.
cinabreug a’ zontm sft ‘wn qs a Rimi1!
—
ona ae 3 von tated A 28 srtenod ? xomtm or
Liat beedass x0 sitiw BtH to peat “em eif2 xo sdf dywortsts .a1u05 re
:
& yd Bevidee
OV ists’ yorito yr wiFoal s ian 5 smooed ‘oved yaa eO€2L .39A goroOvid bas sgaitiaM ters sid coeopeiriss taxsl yrevd
Pie
ofa yd betittiso sd ,losr9id cotjesianeloe edt no yleastbomer ,Liede ,te9i1 [fade
bise o9f2 yd bengte od Lfade yod3
ssw
ait 38 to9e91q ow
seTJ2igs1
easibtsug
ro
o3s5b2t3199 SAT Jadabis antistottio
arsdist
s of s3sottitiss
sit yd mevtg ed o2 batiups: s tot
asdfetupss
Visas on bus steartitxss
ae oldteetmbs
letwst ads to diod sated eeljieq osewied (S)
_
mi
a:
a
oie vos
_ «S@vor stavitg 10 eugogscy2 6 ok enolgh ies »
Jm_,
jewst. sia to sgsseu odd 03 gakbiooos , —
=.
ee
asdmsm s et modw Io dss Beh rey Eat (2),
weal
mokeestosq ai ai so ,ebrotri to yjsetse2 sft to e¥deto0? :
asn3 24 dotesuetsq sit io to ddiw
yiism oj slut 831 yd bosizodjus bas jon at sosiq AT
,a5gsau 231 ot gntbzooos
be bitosge
gntbyooss “agnthiiud
.
a
j.qe-hge i> .aed i ters
=
se
wy
4
_
borageiges" sis dohiw
sf3 no bestamsloe sd ysm esgstirem gaiwolloi ofT Ytisorlaus |
»
to aotlorlte) osmed
-aduds32 oF
|
a
a
to qidenow jo asseig 40. eisqeis odd mr (A)
aysinoazeth jastes3zo1I
3
.
a
RSAYSOR EAS Jaabnsintreque s to may} Le
8 patbliud Pere se pire
-
Le !
41. to
such
form
be married
and
see
(b) A marriage
ceremony
fit
in the
to
as
the
persons
to
adopt;
office
of a superintendent
registrar;
(c) A marriage
Society (d)
according
of Friends
A marriage
Jewish the
Church
of
of eee
a one
and
had
1898
1949
England
one
private
building
been
privilege
extended
which
permits
cannot
marrying
not
Marriage
a marriage
illness
to
the
amended
special
proposing
the
usages
rites
the
of
of the
of
mention. to
to if
which
is not
a register
office
of
power
one
the
Licence)
the
1836 Church
has
Act
to
is
now
1970,
the
suffering
recover
building.
of
ina
authorizing
parties
expected
registered
of
of
This
a licence of
by a series
to marry
licence.
General's
anywhere
he
rites
the
issue
details The Acts
the
a special
(Registrar
General
from
in minor
by others:
authority
of
to
to
according
shared
Reigstrar
be moved
been
deserves
the
a serious
according
according
since
the
by the
solemnization
from
has
those
on
persons
of England.
of which
left
two
Jews;
(e) A marriage
The Act
of the
(the Quakers);
between
religion
to the usage
and
A much
94A The Marriage Act 1949 (Amendment) Act Act 1958; the Marriage (Enabling) Act Monmouthshire) Act 1962; the Marriage Act
1949
1970.
are
These
Acts
collectively
(except
known
as
for
that
1954; the Marriage Acts Amendment 1960; the Marriage (Wales and (Registrar General's Licence) of
1962)
the Marriages
and
Acts
the
Marriage
1949-1970.
Act
sH3
to sgseu oda 03 gntbuooo8 :(ex9ieu0
9f3)
grit gotsoqoitq enoetsg to esgseu
sf
agstrrsm
ebnotrt
sotgiisr
ss
03
gntbtoons
dahwet
»basigagd
astree
s yd elftateb
e€8I
to atoA sit
to dazu
asd
eONRL
onion
nosd
Isiosge
A (5)
te datudd
soate esq eaer to JoA adT
esvisesb
doirw
to sno Me
send to
sit to estt1 odd of gaktbrooos gatyvtyem seodd 4iel bed B@8I bas
& ni yYTtsm 03 wom
yonmtm oi bsbnsme
sia
sgettzem
eicdT
aswoq .sonsail
320A (somentt
siz gatsbiolius gotistive
fovm A
[stosqe
yd bstedea
sd3
toa sgoliviag
& to «arotios
a3
sgsitisM
6 suezt
o3 Istsnod
io smo
if sisfweis
oF bstosqxs
.gntbliud
‘e1sdto
e' Lsetonsd tetieigsi)
spnscll
et asisxsq
bits IsvODex
sit
mo
sao baalgnd
gnibitud
sasvizq
sit yd bsbastxes ased
istjagisH sda eattianeg dokdw . sgsttzsm 6 to nobtssbamsloe
jonat od dotdw moxi eesnflt
berstetge:to sottio
_ oe
ows nsewisd sastaism“A (b)
03 gnitbrooos
to astii
.
io yistooe
taweL
93
A (5)
avorrad
6 mor?
ytelgez & 03 bevom sd Jennss
“ogakrraM ofa ;82@L 454 (ansmbnoma) “ash 498 3Rage ngeed peck a ares 334a 1]Anrnare
Ade
42, more to
important
18 by the
Family
over
: this
[G]
MARRIAGE
(i)
change
age
may
and
Russian,
its
Jewish,
the
West
Indians,
the
people
indigenous
to
mosaic
the In
the
as
of
a result
the
age
of majority
of which
consent
of
any
of a variety
of
societies,
family
those
and
lives been
of
Eskimos cultural
of
of
the
cultural
other
anyone
Slavic,
of
and
environment
and
individuals
superimposed
the
Sikhs
in which
of
as
composing
the
of
the
Jamaicans
Asiatic
of
customs
the
these
family
unit
and
beliefs
which
family
Canadian
Indians,
and
Each the
mostly
unit.
'Laws'
affect
Upon relating
unit.
Canada,
Bromley:
rowel ecs|Oke
French,
people,
origin,
the
Anglo-Saxon,
Scandinavian
and
the
religious
pattern
the
the
Indians.
consits
The
countries,
Chinese
American
thought
such
Mediterranean
Parsis,
Japanese and
groups
Commonwealth
Hindus,
group,
Ukrainians,
the
each
the
lawmakers
in
the
Dominion
Parliament
(until
94B See
94B
person.
heritage.
predominant other
environment
habit
of
own
including
people
cultural
morals,
has
upon
largely
the
its
numerically
European
the
with
to day
it
the Muslims,
groups,
conventions,
the
the
of Asia,
This
with
German
Greeks,
comes
functions.
of
East
and
this
reduction
1969,
; without
is composed
imprint
and
day
Act
the
CANADA
carrying
Italians
the
IN
cultrue
Icelandic,
groups
Reform
marry
Canada
group
stamped
and
now
law was
General
immigrant
has
Law
LAWS
Culturally
customs
in the
"Family
Law"
(Butterworths)
(1971
-
4th
ed.)
recently
=
fies ,29k25t20e 10 viotisv & to bezoumna, (SRB IS A501 istutius mvro ast
sAT
vie st ddttw
guotg “Semtgtmnt
19d30 io seodt fogu tuinqmt ett beqeste ead gntbulset
,enstntanil
of3
nstventboso?
sbbneo vital
vEtbofoaans a ° suitluo brs emoteus
epBon odyiB33. vdbbs : wits’ s to I .€e8 i mov etd stsb s9tel Td VRE ee nS ge ar ok eilues edz Sebyfoxe 31 sonie wal yee to 5915.sos Baas felsomixtsM bos sorovid fatoeqe
s tart oe basigai
bre sovovid
an noes
18 ats Bs Move ajos, jag
Istrsqmi
to (23 .10 JOE EE
yot Soomailais{ colmimot
sil4 yd be:
ie
mo
ae
as coat
2 3 bobat
to tol = to |mold,— detignd yruimes di@i yliso
y
id Lg
£
a
im
gs
i}
7
Ae.
x
ae
.otzsjnO at exes3eM yotilun °
ue
a 0 WEL oft to moktsoliqqs sii roi eetsh), Hio-3u9. Anewales ' gad swoled nsvig 938 asontvorq wal om onto add 93 basi
OT8L
. viel sel
poisdiA » wee
-
stdmslod debt ira
as
828f sadmavoKl dIeL
cs
Otel ,yful dsel
;
on
,tedo0I50
:
bas
baste
ENS .yivl fay Oe8L .viwl Azer eeEivts 4oi O28 y
dibdaabe
I bas ~e79338m
fon
bas ede
pike
a
107
r a a90sSot gnivtt enatbens)po
| asad! syad Xeon atl
i
7,
a
:
“4 :
' basi brvolwstt
EfSr ,yseunst tel REL
-
awl
|
3b 202
sBvOoK
biswha' soakz4
i]
45. suitable but
for
which
temporary
Canada. 1857
persons
have
needs,
For
is
but
applicable
and
Prince
Edward
Divorce
got
Likewise
Lord
Ontario,
but
enactment
affinity
and
and
such
cut-off
applicable
Columbia,
today
provinces
and
Newfoundland.
this
problem
Scotia
which
Ree
persons
related
shall
Saskatchewan
in Prince
Edward
was
be
in other
the
within
voidable
Thus,
due
Island,
Ontario,
merely
to
null
and
today,
such
on
the
the Act.
Manitoba
was
to
that
the
a of
statute
enacts
to
all
intents
historical British
marriages
are Nova
Columbia, void
New
Brunswick
and
“Marriage
5 and
~6 William
IV Chapter
voidable.
Act , 1835
(England),
96 In
re
Setdlerand
Dejardin
v.
Mackio,
Dejardin,
(Alberta)
(Manitoba)
(2929)
(1932)
4 D.L.R.
2 W.W.R.
97 Payne,
"Power
on
Divorce",
(1964
- Toronto),
344,
478
237.
but
Scotia
95 The
and
degrees
void
of
colonial
Prior
that
Alberta,
means
in Ontario,
that under
to the different as
and
which
not
the
prohibited but
Act
restitution
in Alberta,
only,
of
Causes
jurisdiction
of England
the
such
Newfoundland,
but
provinces.
law
"absolutely
in provinces and
similar
and
ago,
con-
Manitoba
Scotia
by conferring
Act,
was
In Nova
is applicable
applicable
in Canada
four
of
in Ontario,
the
Lyndhurst's
are
British
two
provinces
Matrimonial
in
wharsoevenhe”
marriages
and
or
abreast
in various
available
Manitoba,
such
Divorce
keep
separation
a marriage
dates
to
applied
in Alberta,
consanguinity
purposes
itself
a century
judicial
is not
between
that
Imperial
Lyndhurst's
marriage
being
society
as
in Nova
of Lord
in England
partially
around
it
English
such
Island
Court
the
wholly
are
an
still
reliefs
rights
legislature
are
only
matrimonial
conjugal
changed
example,
Saskatchewan that
been
composing
54.
brelge’a |
es bs seat
"alin
Qo essnbyexq eueixby ai botiqgs sats 1 Pa 40k ggeund Lekkomsa6H breoovovid Lele | bas sdodinsM
Biot a: tdeor qq
|
,sidmulod datsir& ay
2k
ES
a g tess ansem dotdw ,otisin0 ni ysbos sidsotiqgs vElatams
to notswitiess bas notssisqee Isiotbut as doua atutiex rakiconlSieel Sas ~otustaO nb
som
sud
assatvorg
tuot
siz
at aldsftsve axa eudgra/ Eibane
.knelbavoiws bas brelet byawhl wodhet
tstnofos sis st3os2 avo nl eid mo norzotbetxut satristnon
yd meidorq ei3 boyors 30g atuselatgel >
.
+
Ligh of aobnv jets 03 sellmta esy f>tiw st¥o08 sve nl 27beD Soave bos sdojins’ sa9
of
,sizsdiA nt sidsstiqqs
told
& gadd
.asantvotq
esw
baslgnd
reso
et Ee son e" sexuthayd bxol satwodtt
ot aidasttags
Jo wel sft
jon
.39A2a eee
2i +i
dud
,otasaa0—
biol to Sted
to eseigeb bstidtdorq ofa mtdjiw beisiex anoa%sq naswiod sastaa
@258n5 atneant
Ssdutete 4ted3 aud ,vino sidebtov eaw viiniugaseqos Iie ot biov bos lun
festyos3etd
tosieiitib
~StdmuloD detzi1ad
viesuloadn"
sd3
o7
sub
od Lleda ogaizasm = dove sada
.aulT
\2 alggunoasae sadiniie hile?
,sttedIA as dowe asonivorg
tud blov sxe asgsitism dove
bre ysint?ie”
nt sbsasd at asisb Vie-2u9—
peeked ,obinitn0 bas abwardossdes2 vadostaat
o
St4ea2 /avolt ‘baa’ dolwanwti welt ebasfbrvuotwe ,baslel brawba Soma
Sh.
-sidsbiov yLlotsm sxe eogelvtam doves” 7
“ae ALG. é @
Pian,
-
ceery
a
oe Se oe
=
oor -4
77
46, (ii)
The
Legislative
British
law-making
section
of
which
the
Dominion
The
layouts
which
North
powers
Legislatures
Powers
America
between
the
of
the
Act
the
classes
Parliament
may
enact
generality
provides
for
those
law-making
1857
of
areas
and
provides
Dominion
Section
indicates
the
Dominion
Federal
Provinces.
on
exclusive
the
91 of
of laws
this
in which
the
a division
Act
with
applicable section
for
Parliament
the
subject
Provinces
are
and
the
the
is a general
reference
to
of
the
whole
contained
Provincial
to which of Canada.
in
Section
Legislatures
92
have
power.
98 The
relevant
provisions
of
"Tt
shall
lawful
the
be
for
Section
91 and
92 are
Queen,
by and
with
as
the
follows:
advice
and
consent
of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated: That is to say: : CEVATT HINT ee 20) MALL Lae Oana DIVOrc[e And any matters coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the province. Section 92 provides for exclusive of provincial legislatures
"In laws
each
in relation
province
to matters
the
legislatures
coming
within
hereinafter enumerated; That is to say: Tenn jriduwssevevia le) 17eb kOe, (14) The Siciacae cin of
the
may
exclusively
classes
of
make
subjects
lhe goLennization of marriage justice in the province including che constitution maintenance and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in these courts.
bd
7
ont
bas soishmod sf: ©
aff) 20 dail & 30 aablverg weeryeab baohita30h as his Laine abad aed ieee Te15bo% chisel clesnids
{#xen9g 8 at 3A od io 12 notsos2 dotdw 02 sonexsiex -sbaens)
to slow
ofa
spot dd 20 a9
to as¢anlo aia sodaotbat dotdwpai
dsiw tostdue
evsi
01 sidssilqgs
Yet Insmetize?
jo8n9
dokatmod “ts
$@ mot3o42 nit bantsinos sis notiosa etdd to ystinzenss 93 mo aduoyal siT | even
estutefatge!
Istonivord
sft dotdw
nt esets seodd 10% asbivoxq dotdw
ge
he oe Oe .tewoq gritemwal svtauloxs
:awolloit 2s sis S@ bas Le notiss2 160 Bnotakvorg tasvsiez bas solvbs sd3 dstiw bis yd ,.coswO edt yo? Iutwel sd Ilene rh tod ,99neq 93 yo? swell solsm of ,.2nommoD to ssuolH bos s3en92 ed to ton atodttsm {fs o4 motisior at absas) to gnsmnisvog boog bas 19b10 bsngteas 3os ata yd etostdue to eeeesin ofi oidtiw gatmoo
gnseno>
1936973 10t bos esontvyorg sds io aommstefasl |oft of vlovieutoxs anitosgsi7o% oli to yitiexsnsy ens joFatas% 03 28.08 don jud y3ntsii99 gnthastedstwion) tsd4 betslosb yda1sd et 3¥ nekdasa etd to emrre3
|
ait to yiitodius svitelatael ovkevloxs sft (398 atd2 mk gotdayae | ada ntdtiw grtaod pib3tem Its od ebsixe sbspap) to gnemeailisd
; betAtsmuns i
ee
atosjdve io aseesto
|
7¥88 Of al jedT sSzovid
bas sgsiwiEM
(a2). "wT TR APt etre ye
agostdue to aseepin sit lo yos aldtiw gnimos eisdiee you baA edd midaiw smos o7 bomesb sd ton (itie ncoldosa etdd al bedstemuas.
edz at baetrqwos Siusen sasving 16 Iss0l & 20 eyotism 20 aaslo
bsagbezs 359A etd yd edospdue Jo esaeals eit to cigeetone -a0nIvorq sit to. Pacis faa ails ed aul pxe ae
atoatdue to eaawel > oils aki
Ev animes Bisse om Pits ok As,
;betsismens ecgengen to apes ssaiaps SAT Spherion
' rear
133
1yBe o3 at aedT ae
47. Under
the
present
Parliament
has
power
division
under
of
power,
Section
91
it appears
to
enact
law
that
the
Dominion
concerning
(1) Marriage (2)
Divorce
(3)
Nullity
(4) Judicial
Separation
(5)
Restitution
of
conjugal
(6)
Jactitation
of Marriage
rights
(7) Ancillary orders concerning alimony, maintenance and custody of children insofar as these arise in conjunction with divorce, nullity, judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights. The
provincial
(1)
legislatures
have
Solemnization
law-making
powers
concerning
of marriage
(2) .Nullity
(3) All other
aspects
specifically Parliament, concern (iii)
Legislature
A century
provinces Act
1876
91(26) enact
provided may
of laws
residuary
ago,
the
have
the
been
the
solemnization
the
province
and
provided insofar the
of
the
matters
and
the
Dominion
aspects
are
the
needs
affecting
upon
divorce.
the
the
the
of
Law
of
the
to
North
their
92
enact
administration
and
the
America
time.
Dominion
provinces,
Provinces
Dominion
British
Section
legislatures
within
Common
between
the
powers
and
Nine
92 of
for
provincial
of marriages
by
such
power
91 and
sufficient
marriage
as
Dominion
confers
for
law not
province.
division
Act
concerning to
the
by Section
B.N.A.
power
of
to
of family
Section
Parliament (12-16)
laws
civil
to
gives
a
concerning
rights
of justice
within within
a
ce
bP scans iy
notisysqsé
estovtd
(S)
ysirLluh
te)
Istotbuyl
(A)
atigts Isgutacs
to notdutisasd
(2)
enfltirsi
to moigstigost
(3d)
ytsiiionsA
(1)
esebzo
gnintssaos
-ynomtis
thtoant nsxzbLids to yhojeus bos ssgsasIniam ~soraovth dstkw noltonuytaes ok setts srasiz 26
mottusttasx
zo mokjayaqse
Istotbut
-atdatr
anintsones
egstrzism
Jos weil notolmoed :
to
sis
sii
viltmst? yd soi dove
stosqes
sei
is
.
eae "2 ~~
.
Jo
Ieromivorg
to molsssimmstiodg
(£)
yviitliud
(8)
x9dte@ TIA
(£)
sat
i
vitsatbifosqe
bebtvorg Yy)
tstoenk
bos soknimod
:
,jinemeilrei
silt
Sonrvoerq
sevitivorT wed commod
Legugnos
to esosqes
e5
-
,ystilua
estutelatgol
svad
gnidsmwsl
e1swoq
-
oF
mIS5Nn05
si3_ jo siuielaigsd
=
7 ih
ot
bue moimtmoG
sii
asawied
eaivemA di10M detsiwd noisose
.omis
od tnemakiabS
8 eovig “
sisdt
oft to S@ bas [€ nottos2
to abssn
notatmed
tot
tastoiviva
;
a
all
yd pabivoxqiasgaitine a
we
aa
nasd aie clasa1
359A
ata
a
fo aiato 5Basak: baadounatg i te on.
a ,
A
an _
‘ a
er :
uP
7
/) : 7 '
1
zB diamPes : acl Yor? i
fn
459A )
-A. nei ai, tea
tatontvorg sites
me te pubdereabubs a ants:so2t in
,ogn yauIs5
-ogtavib bas egsttiem gniwiaone. & vel 23
of astuisietge!
“akdttw oddigtt Livis a !
oft
sit noqu exswoq e1xstm02
S@ nokto92
antnison0. inst 356n9
.
s3woq to notefvib sa
és
;
48, the
province.
may
have
over
been
of
may
affect The
Supreme
Court
of
and
of
. a minor
; voidable
ofethe
and
them
that "'to
the
Neilson
v.
of
council of
so
prevailing
as
held
that
on
the
to make
province,
Parliament
to
interpre-
provinces
conferred
conditions
the
dtot hf problems.
the
the
of
has
the
in
on
powers
Bhai
sections
operates
of
the
Canada
provincial
solemnization
which
eeahersen, oa may
a ground
has
be
for
accordingly
provincial
under
conferred
these
in view
of marriage
enact
of the
source
family
of
conditions
legislatures
powers
afford
Alberta
count ; eae
the
also,
Canada
Ontario
the
the
legislation
may
of
Alberta
to
the validity
and
on
draftsman
sections,
a fertile
solemnization
enables
provincial
of marriage
are
the
to social
these
provisions,
the
marriage;
legislatures
today
conferred
to
of
appropriate
them,
inception
regards
intention
ago,
these
power
relating
by way
and
upon
interpreting
laws
the
years
placed
inclusive
as
clear
a hundred
tation
In
Whilst
: certain
iedercode
so
worded
an
as
action
upheld
legislatures
Rinfret
affect
validity
The
constitutionality
rendering
J.,
the
of annulment.
the
She 100 conditions. eam
to
In
the
the
marriage
Attorney
delivering
the
General
judgment
ee
99 in Re Marriage
Legislation
in Canada,
(1912)
A.C.
890:
7 D.L.R.
620.
100 Attorney General for Alberta and Neilson v. Underwood, lo7¢ Seesalso, Kerem v. Kerr, (1934) S.GeRe 72.
101 (1934) LOZ Ibid
Dede s)ak Oe
(1934)
4 D.L.R.
of
t .dontearq edd odd \seThaw andtss90 deeds 26 Masietinyb edd o noldnorm bas a5fo need overt Ym latsoe 02 o3ntrqo1qqM
gatt ravaxq Biotsibsos
fatontvorq
etewoq
oe
betrslaos
sift mo
ee tostts
of4
vitbiisv
aa
o2
to nokton
.inemiunans
sd?
sdx
vitisahottuattenos sasi+ttem
>
InrvensD
9/(9
vanzo24A =
—
Inoamabut
sit
ae
a1
bledqu
O01
5 biolis
ylgntbs0598
nietis9
pfots tbao5
yam
sd3
Jostie
yam
SAT
bos sgatriam Yo
sidebiov
oftsijn0
tontm
os to
,.l
sovinth
Wt
bas siaediA
pcowxe ball .v goptie
. ios
sd2
!
.f.d-0
6 7008
.9.A
to
1)
SOS, pre0
,OS8
to
smeique
JtucD
stasd DA bas
rsh
as
abysget
féionkvery
eed “shshsD
Lotontvorq
2,
ghixzevtiob
to yalbifav
sotssieigel
bavotg
rot
astusislatgel
aniyebas1
sft
me
oft
yea
ad
to yaw yd
esavielelgel
eoldans
tosno of” meds
sse79ho5 o2
bobrow
(oygnttism
,oals
isdt
ald
of as anatstbnoo
dotdw aoliestamsloe
rtewog evkeulont
sid oF molsqoont
erawoq
aco berisinos
of3
2o dnoemetixs%
bane)
al
gatierqzesal
‘to notisatome lor odd od gotiaiey swal
ot sgstrism
sda
,sosnivotq
asisisqo
Seeds
Ho bexxsinos
$n
to so1dolebgol
sft
slam of asonivoxq
beontq aolja3
nogu
,stes
,anoteivotg
odd
yitmet
Lionvoo
esd
Bled
jemi
edd
# oto
eIiti91
to somwoe
igleieet sce
-amgidorg
atosoy betbnaud a v0
os
vehod
seals
,#n0ltos2e
to walv nt
si
.
ile? dotdw eno16 ot awsl beionns svad Hot a'nam-on & otk x0 nolnimol od3 to QaivEd oe
duo beintog sd 03 ebson 37
.asamivorq ed,
ba
ai y2iviton 19466%g 163 boonabive oved assutEh 9d3 gninisono> exs3ism
bajesy sad foldw notntmod siz esd nedt hte
|
a
;
:
ebnsd eit mox? gtle o3 19woq oviieletgel eth gutwolle d3tw 29s3n09 ait so ysivitos evobmomexd adigiz ea .3ioy ef3
Ils
ada otditw gotnokionut
mat bipgea
wai gomma> zobnu
eda vind
etd
ot ewal
.A.W.4
sd3
anin otf1 totdwiot viimei
sd3
.wolsd bajsoibat
,f@ motions?
ishov
to eelwliidieaoges1
aleubivibat to y3tortoltny
ewal
bes75sne
bas
aver of sidstkasb et at
an93xs sgisi sft
gnaimresnoo
.sbeasd to esonivorg 498% ak aved asanivorg
o1s Yd8! 4oA sottemA daze dekitra edd Yo Se
»woled
oA
segusdiol nwo ajt dauoid3
to ytiorrottny to Aosl art estuseletgel fstonivoxq of2 io 378q
yftmet
moizos2
dave io sivesx sdT
swode
sys
2leadg3
atda
o3 gstudsda
% 3nomstitsT noloimed silt yd begoent
josveles ‘apy
aes
Of .dd.D,2 .€80L ogstz1eM Yo JasmhingA bas Boljulowstt
OS .dD .0.2 ,83-CL 395A sozovid +2.2 88-T8OL yd bsissqos ,LS at) S20!
.5.2.8 .3DA ata
»AL .dd
aol
ut
J 18
«OS .A9 Bd-TOCL yd bolssqed ,'8 dd seer (9.2.4 390A iat 83-T8CL
vd bolssqey
yisisaq .@3 .AD geet Bae i aN
Pa; te
unis sotovld | Jee
1 ok?‘(olbwean0) aie b
7
aL. Age
of Majority
Domestic
Relations
Marriage
Act
Seduction British
Age
Act
Manitoba
Chap.
Act
Bill
1960
1970
Act
R.S.M.
Act
Courts
Solemnization
Scotia
amended
1970
Ch.
Act.
R.S.B
to geno smesave ewel
to Ssvisooqeorrt
Lage!
sgettiam
[le o3 alee
:
a eaten 20 Wee sage
abbot ada gta tlqate, to ogeatevbe myever {ftw atdT to asesd
auorgiisx edt
.
tedd ad Iftw
[sotaticg otmonoss~-otooe ntabom to 3xo3ao5 93al -tidiw, yaws enh 9d LLiw
i)
yiesesosn at 3t stbri at ytetsoe |to mredisq atetlelooe 8Jorebepeokidy:
iy?
.enokaut ident fsgal Seswotoskxatuoes of -
00! gare o4 besubox od “ce odian oe od ysm es rei of
0 eal:
7
. _
Dos possible. skill
No
can
gaps
fill:
present should possible. All
should
the
be
future
left as
which
well
as
be catered for wherever of which envisages the
eventual enactment of an Indian code which shall embrace all citizens of
tndta. He
further
says:
"A sure
instinct
begs
that
legislation
should be confined to the bounds of everyday experience and should not include rules of purely speculative
or experimental
character."
the
oF ne —
»
4° ots
1,
fdr’
¢
|
Wea slf
ee
:
seas
:
;
(2
ia
con
7) a
ee .
FY
y
J .o
ee
een
7
i
‘(om rr
a
ie
Seueees
are a
7
ete
Give
|
oe
be t
ig
;
54.
CHAPTER CONTRACTS [A]
II
TO MARRY
INTRODUCTION A marriage
by a contract As
a general
as
other
cial
India
to marry rule
they
for
and
but,
to
age,
in most
of
than
"engagement"
as
certain
the
in a case
accounts
for
inordinate
actions
involved
the
are
topic
from
Thus, the
light
which
that
of
bear
a paucity [B]
it
great
practical
the
legal
standpoint
the
law
old
the
BETROTHAL
OR
Betrothal
precedes
a girl
another
though
come
personal
before
this
prepared
to
pocket
is very
is not
be
be
but
made
in
his
or
her
the
pride
The
human
presumably of
legal
problems
examination
of
interest.
aspects account
once
in
materialistic
breach
an
without
into at
that
courts
are
which
to
law
uncommer-
material.
great,
devoted
certain
taking
free
and
the
in
with
of
Happily
Even
consequence,
it must
rules
engagements
It may
examine
same
in India.
of
the
more
admitted
subject recent
that
in
cases
there
is
topic.
ENGAGEMENT
betrothed
person
but
highly
not
space
press.
authorities,
matter,
on
to
of
by the
preceded
known
many
sort
amount
as
characteristics.
do
is
this
no
the
of
of
popular
proposed
their
journalist
the
is
on
party
in
of
of
invariably,
'betrothal'
although
a sensational
means
governed
to marry
jilted
element
promise
or
in dissolution.
interest
the
by no
peculiar
frequently,
be dissolved
provide
are
a result
promise
very
cases
although
contracts
possess
Canada
only
or
such
breach
hope
rather
frequently,
contracts
nature
actions
is
IN
marriage to
one
in
such
INDIA
but
person a case
unlike may
marriage
be validly
a suit
may
be
it
is revocable,
given brought
in marriage for
damages
so to
tot emottos
.{stietem 9912 Atitw teblenwot Ienokasense 5 sbkvorq mend sodjaxt
vidnmuactgq
emsidotq
>
oft at enotios
seimorg
tsets on to 918 baviovat Isgel
si3 movi ofqod 9d
ot bseoqoxg
,eottisodius
ef 3b ,eudT
blo ett to adgkl on3
mo rsed dotdw 36 od taum Ji tud .1tsd4em sdt .otqot 9d3 no wel to yitourq8
103 sei
_
istivosg atesas9 padbety ved? s1utan Isto
s10isd smoo tom ob yxrtan of eatimoxg to dosed
st
fk e2twos
@3ps73202 2830. as Sek
itsd3 te neha
vidgtd
base Isnox19q
—
i toeelut senibe seh
wal Yo esfuvt ome of3 yd bentevog S16
phenPomat od yam tise
;
pe against
the
contract
father
In
the
case
guardian.
remedy
is not
bridegroom only
of
the
girl
according
who
to Hindu
brought
law
also
is no
the
more
than
Where
there
specific
dies
promise
is
a suit
is given
a breach
performance
pending the
the
but
of
by the
promise
qencesene
father
the
When
for
damages,
his
legal
out-of-pocket
expenses
incurred
or
other
appropriate
the
plaintiff
representative during
the
De
Thus
marriage
is
transaction;
Marriage
condition
that
mercenary
the
be
confounded
ancients have ever after she
is
of
only
betrothal.
&
a contract.
moderns
The
Manu
one
is
says:
who were
given a damsel in has been promised
immoral
to
and
or
contracts
property,
procurement
speculation;
nor
contracts,
conveyance
it
is
with
to
man."
brokerage
the
.
other
"Neither
the of
to
good men marriage
another
or
not
:
a complete
ground
Betrothal
of minors
recover
perraeha
guardian
to marry.
legal
money,
other
of marriage.
a promise
can
or
of
the
a particular
allow
under
or
marriage
the
the
doing
of
be made
law,
payment
any
marriage,
to
English
for
other
of
act
are
void,
the
subject
a bond
by the
on
on
the
of
husband
AL
Mulla:
“Hindu
Law’
(Bombay)
(13
ed.
1966)
at
473.
2
Rambhat v. Limmayya of presents.
A.1I.R.
[1892]
16
Bom.
673
(suit
for
restoration
3
Balubhat-ve-Nanabhazi
[1920],.44
Bom.
L.J..
446.
4
Mayne's
"Hindu
5
Manu,
LX,
99.
Law
and
Usage"
(Madras)
(11th
ed.
1933)
at
136.
teddo
aistrgoxags
titiaislq
sit seimorq
sds nodW
4videtasestqst sH3
to doseixd & et saed3 aren
sneha
taged
* -asgunad jud ooramro? 19g olttoeqe tom ek ybomet
Issel
goluub
sontHt to 9280 orld rT ont ao
et sakmorq
odd xd navig
10 tad381
ati
,esgamsb
tol Jive s sista asib moorgebiad
bor1uonk
a9ensqxs
toxioog-to-tu0
edd
tevooas vino as.
© isdioxted et ome
oAT
© auae
.Inddotisd
umeM
dtiw
* shprtnas
bsbnvotnon
sd o3
s vino er isd30
tom
sda
el sgekrxem
einiT
~ :
enotjosens1d stelqmos 5
s79w oflw emrobom ton etaskons sofa te™ og
to dnosmyeq m0. 395
sii
no
r930
basdaud
vite
,btov a16
to Josfdve
od3
off
oi [sems5 s nevis sve sved asm boog bse tmorg nsed esi sie ttis agsityam eae tadsons 107
atostinod
io gntob 9f3
.osstxsem
xo
to «28326 13R0D sgsxsaord eVirsqorq
asluotsisg
5 ,wel detiged
sit
to SONSY2VAOD edi
|
A
sO .Yysnom
pie Antsm9 TU907g edt io molstbaos
osbsm sd of sgsiztasma wolls
seit yd bood
egsitisM
o3 Iexommi
at 3i tadd
robau bos ‘;nottaluseqe
bneorg
Yrsnso19M =f
:
E08 de (BCL !sbe EL) (encima) "wed ubaba" vitxia'™ y
=
anes
foktexoIasy Oi tive) EXO .mog Bl [SCBr] .A, T.A sytesantd ag “aenea tgg ,20
OMS .Lid smoot dS [OSCL] aah ata
der je (f£21 .bo W3Ll).(es2beM) " ase bas we. =
>
ae
5
ny
aK
56. to
the
has
wife's
been
father
held
to
be
Therefore,
though
it
is very
doubtful
or
other
to in
of
the
the
nuptial
both
the
right
if
a better
allowed
suitor
, 6 discovered.
But
be
it
"A man
who withdraws cause
is
now
specifically
for
where
proper
even
may
annul and
marriage
contract.
the
Asura
Narada
recover
form,
the
father the
Yajnavalkya
and
a betrothal party
5B
from
to to
one
suitor,
a contract
specified
defects
his
contract
without
compelled
to marry
the
is
are
his will."
by decisions
and
‘ in
to
either
certain
the
is completed,
entitled
But
from
be
against
settled
enforced,
to
himself:
states:
girl
be
to
brokerage
. marriage
allow
upon.
Narada
consent
the marriage
father
it,
to
a marriage
would
agreed
the
from
of
after
presents
to withdraw
latter
law may
bride
fee
of
the
nature
whether,
bridegroom admit
the
F Hindu
the
guardian
induce
that
the
that
remedy,
a contract
if
any,
to marry
is by an
will
not
action
damages.
5A Where money is paid to bride's giving her in marriage.
father
or
guardian
in
consideration
of
5B When the bridegroom receives a maiden, after having given as much wealth as he can afford, to the kinsmen and to the bride herself according to his own will that is called Asura rites; See also Chapter III for further details.
6 Nacddsee
VOL
Is0—seevan.,
Ly
05,
O60.
7 Narada
srl
2.35.
8
Karibassaka
v.
Karibassoma
South India, till raised, betrothal
of
the marriage
[1894]
recent years and marriage
was
later.)
3 Mysore
when took
153.
(Among
Brahmins
in
the marriage age of girls was place together and consummation
allan torts:
sda isdts rslts? a baasiqaes et ogstitxam
aij mot? tsvos9r oF beLtigas sd bluow obtsd ald to a sydisventeY bas short sui .nogu bes7gB, piaaba'd toibue 9060} Thtitotted 8 Lunns of rode? eff 20 jdgis si Wad
stb
etosteb
bolitooce
a
: ilsemid ainsee3q yoslue re
bas
ai Jostino> 8 of yIssq tedtts
nistrass
o3 bavolls siedw .It nord werbitiw o3
* wa
etoisen
.
juondiw tosvinoo aid mort awarhdsiw onw acer A” zS8qo7q afd yrram od bslisqmos od yam eauao " [tw etd jantegs fev.
= s tedt anotefoob yd. belasee Phen at dud
ton [Liw yvtram ot tosrtnoo
he
f
nottos as yd at ,yhs tr ~ybomex odt teddy bos .bsovelns yilsotttoeqe od C ccgnauh 302
463-9?
to notiersbranes
ni oskbisug
10 wisit\e"sbtad
Ae
of bisq et ysnom etedW
,ogstrvem mt rod gotvig@
doum 28 nmovig gnived
931s
n ,neblem s eevieost nootgebiad edt eee
.
see ilseted shitd ot 04 bos ieieerd odd od ,broiis po 9d es eels soe
:es3ia
stueA
boliss
'
at Jens tite two 2td of
.aliszeb redtzpt rot Tit ers Sea
{
.00 ,23 ,T ,.afe¥ ~BE-O0€ , TTX ,sbareh im §
nlBinge rit gaomA) § ,€CL sxoey &Ripe
s6w
& io 5x5 ogsixiem sis
anto> base tSiiegoa soBiq
ete
Vitter
a
™
[C]
MARRIAGE Where
for
the
damages
course
BROKERAGE
for
lie.
minors,
parties
breach
Where
courts
It
is well
to
remunerate
have
or
is
giving i
his
contrary
to
recovered not
when
performed,
Purushotamdas
;
a sum
not
or once
’ it
v.
the
can
be
in
,
policy
is
the
for
of
contract.
an
agreement
or
be
a father opposed
of
opposed
to
public
to
public
promisor
but
i
in consideration
of
policy
if
is valid
and
and
Money
however, the
of
the
poliegin-
cannot,
place”
of
negotiating
enforced.
consideration the
takes
of
breach
contract
agreement
will
behalf
of
an
action
on
to
in
an
into
consideration
equally
recovered.
Purushotamdas
entered
daughter
under
juris,
the woman
cannot
a gift
or
marriage
or
sui
and
of money
immoral
brother
is
brokerage
to make
to marry
are
damages
person
in marriage
is
a father
awarded
public
a promise
and
contract
third
to
to pay
agreeing
enforceable
a
to marry
by the man
a marriage
reward
But
bridegroom
paid
generally
daughter
WEY
marriage
that
An agreement
a contract
of contract
the
settled
a marriage
to
be
marriage
is
ut
[1897]
21
Bombay.
23.
10 Umed v. payment Hermann
Nagindas [1870] 7 B.N.C.0.C.J., 122 (the of consideration was invalid as contrary v,. Charlesworth [1905] 2 K.B., 123 C.A.
agreement to public
Wal
Srinivasa
Aiyer
v.
Narayanan
Nambudiri
Sesha
Aiyer
[1918]
41 Mad.
197.
12
v.
Unnimayya
[1945]
1M.L.J.
145.
13
Dholidas
Ishwar
v.
Fulchand
[1898]
22 Bom.,
14 Pranmohandas
v.
Harimohan
[1925]
52 Cal.
425.
658,
665.
being for policy).
ave |
|
|
an 7
me
eo
>
Ss
a
;
;
er
.
i
eee es
oo
9
_
if
Bee 7
eee
7
atte ac,
notios ms .a@txvt ive oxs i i 03 destino.6
to [Liw niamnow ais “46. paar ade yd Josxdnoy tedonexd
ee
q
oe
pe
RE iT
+t
ve pecs to ifstied no otitt bexsons ek Jositage oan panel
© sosa3n09 Jo dosed tot esgemab baba «Lfsterieg evad e33uo9 ,exomtm aS 10 JoBrIm02
ioemestgs
to soktsrsbtanon
antisisogsn
.boosoins
jo motjsrebteno2 he yoktloq sit
bas bilsv +900M od
aysisdord
»fLduq
at noataq ica 8 brswos 10 sjstenumst 03
od tonnes ie
ni tefisi ot
yh:ae
jo me
6 Y8q OF jnemesigsaA |.
BE sandy tam, at tetdgieb
to notisisblhenro s nt dike 8 stile 03 Stine & tu
sl xoetmoxq ore
,tevewod
at sgetvrem
sda
|
vol Bog 2Efcer 03 “yIstsG09 ef sgstutsm B
& 03 yonom
bsaogqe
setae 8 deca belsiea {low at at
atd gaivtg Il ptrevnt
oft to sx93dgusbh sd3 yarsm of gofeetge mooitgsbiad
es oilduq o% beseqqo ,joanso
Insmsevgs
10
Lexommk
os tabny
jon et bie efdsesroins
tsddord
ti sud el eetia golsi sgsirism NT poravoost
to 26dsst
& od biaq
9f9 soa0 nedw berevoos ed mgs
tt ,bemrrolreq tom
i
" is
syadmod IS [%@8l] esbietodemay # pabmesodaund Pr:
103 goted Jnomeexgs ofa) SSI .(yokfiog
oildiqg
o3 yrsrinoo
OL
,.0.9,.0.0.4.8 ¥ [OV8L] esBrtaat .v bom ah bifevat
asw cotssrebkemoo
io paoote: ‘
A.D ESE ,.£.4 % [2001] dtrowge ted’ .v , | came NOL .beM £ [8L0£] aeytA sifgee 2 ee
s@AL .U.0.M £ [@ser} Ssxyenbontt ..hmanwuce
-289 ,820 ,.mof SS [BCBLTAsean sewiel
igen.” ° ae
|
58. Thus
the
presented
before
question
of
the
enforceable award
as
one
competent
to
of minor as
to
is
be
to
[D]
ENGAGEMENT
since to
the
binding
law
law
to
the
contract,
good
the
the
of minor
match
is
the
that
available,
being
and
as
mainly
betrothal
of
parents
Johnson,
can As
the
is
of
the
same
English
in
two
types
Firstly
in
the
rule
offence,
this
respect
as
the
Indian
law
applies
to
both
the
common The
law
of
cases:
in actions
relating
uu
to
engagements
be
e
for
In these
breach cases
of promise the
plaintiff
Law
and
Usage"
supra
note
4 at
p.
139.
"Family
Law",
Sweet
& Maxwell
1958,
p.
23.
law,
places is
be
interests
old
cannot
jy E.L.
there
a punishable
16 “Hindu
are
the
co
intending
and
as
eh eeCE, eaa0.,
Mayne,
But,
children.
consideration,
daughter
certainly
parties
contract
objection
behalf
is
any
Sareeay
where
to
from
jewels
case.
of marriage.
Mite
on
now,
of marriage.
(1)
dG
parties
paramount
in any
principle
contract
important
of
except
a better
affianced
and
apart
or
IN CANADA
Canadian
the
to marry
the
an
a rule
held
The
are
a valid
equity
open
of money
incurred,
being
themselves
where
recovery
expenses
contract,
appears
revocable
not
of
are
contract
of
of
of justice,
contract,
detention
regarding
betrothal
breach
another
law
or
parents’
children
certainly
Hindu
marriage
for
enforceable
betrothal
of
a rule
damages
to marry
no
rule
is
enta mort ange rhaxtuont¢ ean
at satis: bkinv n ganted Iss
es
ee
a
,ah Bue od
6
9
as olde rs
ge
anibagint eskdisq silt sxortw ee’ -toetti105 Riga
28it3 noltostdo sia oj maqo atssqqs Joera09 3 snaseqaen
ed aso 8293
oi
a
smsabi bdo tonim to tisded no yxtsm o3 JostdHOD otéssoroine eo
@A
edeytoiat
oo
ae
ets bas t9sit3Hoo sdi of erra asvisemefld sis suiaae aatt
era as ,sldslksva
at dodam tsiied 5 Syedw skdadoves at Sedsested
afuy blo sit es bas ,mottszsbtenos
et ,sonsittoa sidedatoug etnstaq
ad’ Jonns®
Iovomstsq sh sae metbitds
ronkm to
oFbas a anied tes3dgueb bsoneltis ne Yo nottmete to Iadstoxred
,won wast jo ofux 8 som
ads
yintsd199
Of gaa yon mi gatbatd od of bled
.wel
mptbnl
ont
es toeqesa
etdd
at ompe
detigad to slqtontiq
ot eatiqqs wsl nommoo
eeneltq sdt diod
at atneamsasges
of gnttelos
wel eT
VE.raseso saimoxrg
Viste
5
9d3 8k wel metbsasd odT
oe
ed3 sonte
.ogskixrsm to tosxia02 sd
to asqy? owd at yintem ‘gna xoqat
ius
to dosastd yot anmotios oi ident (ee)
odd aseso sends ol
a,
of
Oe
ci
* ha
.sgetxxemYo 6
|
r
|
aaa
aL
oc-88 1K HT ..3m °
C8f .¢ 368 & ston wxque "Sgsal bas
(
ou
\€8 .q -82RL Lfowxel 3 390v2 ."Wed vikowt” | i a
oe
noandot
|
a
at -
=
aos is
almost
there sue
invariably
is no a
which
reason
faithless
he has
the onenee
why
a man
fiancee,
done
so
are
though
should
and
not
cases
not
in
entirely
Rathewne?
(2)
Secondly
in
engagement
have
The
ring
been
to
on
has
never
whether or
engagement
been it
whether
married
leave
recover
the
the
whether
an
which
may
engagement.
ring
broke
will
off
that
the
party
had
so.
is
curiously
regarded
law,
in
normally
to marry and
as
decided
it
for Australia
during
and
a contract
"I am willing
presents
party
is merely
people
recover
a legal justification for doing
explicity
is,
to
which
engagement
An
or
given
right
depend
actions
an
do.
you,
a contract,
what to
go
agreement Thus,
but
I shall
if
it
is a contract
through
a man
and
were
to
after
be seeing
enough
to do,
a ceremony
to marry
immediately never
but
live say
i.e.,
of marriage, together to
his
the wedding
you
it
again,"
Gin
as
fiancee,
I shall Wola
saree
18
She
is not
necessarily
a mercenary
"gold
digger",
for
she may
have
given up a job, bought a trousseau, and gone to other expenses in reliance on the promise of marriage, and thus may suffer serious financial loss if the engagement is broken off. addition
to
any
such
special
damage
to damages at large for the loss balm", as it is popularly termed
proved,
she
is
also
entitled
of the marriage, or “heart in the United States.
19 ele. Harrison iv. Cage’ [1698] 1’ ld.-Ray Baddeley v. Mortlock [1816] Holt N. P.
386% 151.
:uN eta ay
dike?
mrss - pony bore
setarceumicr hens
|
it@
AB “t9v0I87 o3 ntioeros nk bebe
y
fj
sd3 tsvooss 03 siigty ad?
tito soud
tt dguons
.+9.r
yievoiine
=
hip Oem
agen
;
i
aa
>
yaiasq dotdw no Basqob
tol nolsehitiseut Legal
stud Pare
8 es
bobisgo1
a ei Joemsgagns
cA
,ob 03 Josatnos 5 ef 31 Jadw bebissh ¥ttotiqnzs msed raven and
eogetrism
lo yoometss
a6 rad 3ogo3
-ssorsit
gatob
;
tonseno bas cele eds.
baat yimsq ted3 .0@
eae
7
|
ey
i,
1966
,ditemegsenrs O23 gottwb asvig asod gigi
,
nae ie
aa
Sy
vem doiily esnsesiq zo dak snsmogega9”
tliw gntx
%
o ae '* em
e)
is
ar
-
evil
abl ot vee
s ifguoats og oF
boas ¥Y3ateit 63 Jnomesigs
of S19W
op
nBM Ss Ti, cand
Iletia I antbbow oda setts yIotethemmt textt ed3 mo " ~obsgs
juisesnins'
voy anisse
od teven
qylovsm et
,wol ot
it asrijedw
,ak 3t en
ob yllsmren
siqosq
beirsem
gud , voy yxtiem oF gakiliw me I" fisde
I bos sihisiseuA 102 eveel a -
8L ‘oved yen oe xo? , "'aeag ts blog" qisns978m s Vibiseascen ton at of@ agansqxs rsiio of snog bas euagaavoxd Ba Adguod dot & qu gh gi: astive yom aut
mk Jud belatine
bos .sysiateci Fo seh
si3 va how te
onts 2k oe
| fnboe
,be
ttnond" to ,agsiitem
oda
200822 bettn ody fs:pee vinel
#
)
i3
.220 noslord at age
we
a
o
60.
view to
this
go
but
through
it
married
fore,
‘ in
and
that
take
live
the
the
marry
some
could
not
The
‘ happening be
and
of
an
conditional
the
in her could
the
promise
event
: which
has
the
is willing
man
during
held
to
It
is
the
: in
to
would
be
of his
death
be against
there-
entitled
to marry
lifetime
her.
wife
because
public
law,
get
submitted,
promise
wife's
is
this;
; is,
agreement
his
to
do
an
supposed,
his
to do
engagement
wife.
after
was
he agreed
an
i.e.,
and
he
policy
on
. certain of
some
a certain
to
happen,
uncertain
date,
22
or
event;
or the
in
on
the
! promise
may
these
cases
20 Kremer v’. Ridgway [1949] 1 All E.R. 662. “If it is necessary for my decision (though I doubt it), I would say that, while it is true that this particular type of contract - the exchange of mutual promises to marry ends, so far as legal enforcement is concerned, on the performance of the marriage ceremony, nonetheless the performance which the parties contemplated at the time they exchange mutual promises is not exhausted by the performance of a mere ceremony. I am quite sure that no young woman, when she accepts a proposal of marriage and a contract is formed, would be satisfied if she were told that all the young man is undertaking by the promise is to go through a form or ceremony of mutual promises to become one another's spouses - to become husband and wife with dali that that should entail." (Per Hilbery J. at prt G64)F, 2a
Wilson
Carniey
[908]
to
See
to marry
happening
he
repudiated
mer
: is
all
circumstances
lifetime, be
as
that
socially,
presumably
not
and
suggests
husband
man
may
on
20
by a married
woman,
parties
contract,
as
as
under
that
other
so
case
regarded
woman,
made
of
of marriage,
together
view
do
morals
breach
a modern
is normally
A promise
ang
be no
a ceremony
a dictum
what
to
would
1 K.B.
729
(C.A.).
DR
Frost. v.° Knight’ [1872] L.R. 7 Ex. 111, in which the defendant promised to marry the plaintiff as soon as his (defendant's) father died.
had
evel nt ,at sinamagegns as Jsj3 cou
ae
ub nae ak
tog of Iaoimearas ns . +9. .vlisksoe en babregoy vi lemon el tt tadw
-o1edd ,botttmdve ef 3%
.otkw bas bosdeul 2s tortegod evil bas belrzam
belitins od ula ebeeoqqua asonsiamuarts 383 vebnu .nemaw ad taf? ,o10t -%ed yxxem 03 setmorg aid betaibuqe: ot stiw eid
to smtjotil
od sauesed
votiog
oft
dissbh a'sttw
okfduq
Jantses
untuvb
nem
etd totts
sd 01
asd nam oa
van 9etmorq
avers
seodd
xo
,938b nistis9
sia
+o =
o vd oe satmorq
yvidsmvesya
Ga tie
2 no yrism
nit j;aneveo oteitesny
smoa
YiITaMm
ved mi oe ob tom bluos
sd ton
oF Sseisorg
cnerrtl oj noisiz9>
A
,nemow ted30 emoe
bled est ,smtisitl AS 65
oft oo
belts
ded walv ef? sated o3
bluoo
bas
elarom
yem eaksaeq
st doitiw anevs 6
bas
sat
to kaltasagqed
to gniasqqsd eds mo [snotsibaos $d ™
os Toi yakeszsoon ai 3i 20" S80 .f.0 TA I fRaeL) sewn Vv zoma7s ak tt olidw ,tsdt vea bluow I, (at taduob T dguons) notatoob ym’ feuium to oprsioxs } 9%} =- J9syt3n05 ne sqyt isivsidweq etdt 2sd3 oux3 ~bonxeonos 21 Sdouestoins Isgol es test oe ebro virram of esetmorg
eis aeslentsson’.ynomeiss yada sot
te Sonemiolisq
st
systotem avs to sonsarrotisq si3 m0
ts betslawasnoo
od3 yd bedeiverxs
esitisq
aft dokdw sdnesrrot1s9
tom et asekmorq Iautum sgnadoxs
eit asdw ,aeitow gavoy on Jedd s3e sokup me TL ad co
boise?
ar Jostjoo>
.ynGme1s9 o19m-6 —
5 bre rap od‘to hee capes & e2q9D9B |
ets dolrw atk efit, sbhnosteb) etd 26 foann
8Dyete
Ga, no had
action
for
breach
would
occurred,
unless
the
defendant
put
it
daeae cients
agreement
2 or
by marrying
A promise
event
on
the
a general
re within general and
had
occurrence
promise to
which
of which
; time
on
of marriage fulfill
the
the
had
date
had
formally
his
power
passed
or
repudiated
to
comply
the
event
the
with
the
date
or
person.
of marriage,
a reasonable
until
outside
another
of marriage
promise
refusal
like
does
stipulate
the marriage
and
request. the
not
is
construed
Zo
or
to as
take
must else
either show
place
a promise
P In anvaction
plaintiff
ponte
is
the
for
the
is
to marry
breach
prove
a formal
termed
of,.a
a request repudiation
23 Ibid. It was held that the plaintiff could maintain an action for breach, although the defendant's father was still alive. Equally in Donoghue v. Marshall [1875] 32 L.T. 310, where the parties had agreed to marry in May 1875 and the defendant broke the engagement in February 1875, it was held that the plaintiff might sue at once for breach without waiting until May.
24 It might be argued that he has not necessarily done so, because if A in January promises to marry B in December, and in March A marries C, it is possible that C will die before December, and A will then be in a position to marry B. The answer to this is either (1) that an engagement places both parties in a special status, that of betrothal, which comports the existence of the betrothal, so that so doing would be a breach of such duty (this view was adopted by Byles, J. in Frost v. Knight, ante, at p. 118, though it was clearly obiter or (2) that an engagement is an agreement to marry in the state in which the parties are at the time of the agreement. So if A, a bachelor, promises to marry B in December, he cannot fulfill that promise as a widower. This view was expressed by Lord Denman, C.J. in Short v. Stone [1846] 8 0.B. 358, 369; it is submitted that his statement was a part of the ratio decidendi of the case, and that view is to be preferred to that of Byles, J. 25 Harrison
v.
Case,
ante
26 Though
the
refusal
need
not
be made
to
Fare [162/]°2°C. 6 P.. 631, it was held request and refusal when the defendant an inquiry from the fulfill his promise
the
plaintiff;
in Gough
v.
that there was a sufficient replied "certainly not" to
plaintiff's father whether to marry the plaintiff.
he
intended
to
ya
me |
7S ws
j
i;Se
ge
a
»
tnave aid 10 beeenq bed osab atid S
a
er
tay = ; .
7) we
a datea anal aa ws
em
«2 se
si2 yo stab oft otsluqtte bestras
et soelq
Yitem
sist ot
oF satmorq
8 In dosetd
iAeupss
rot notsos
6 svorqg
nobisibuqes
wdits
Lemxol
ss
i
a
toa e#s0b doidw ogsivism to setmorq x"sing
bsuydano>
s woda
as
seum
al
et
bas
safes
,Saeliiem
ed mo ineve
to s2hmo71q Iet9neg 8
Ch. aeueme mo smt3
titsntsalq
sidaonossst s nidiiw
sig ogekynedto
setmoxrqg Istsneg
x6 G3 aknoue sd3 ffttiv? ot Isevisy brs
ES rot sottos as ntsinism blues ittinkslq sda sedi bied geaw 3I .btdT yileupS .sviie [lise esw sedis} ce’ insbnsieb sis Adguodate eflosetd basi esigisq sda atedw ,OLFE .T.d SE [eel] ww nt thatsesgas siy stor Shabheveb sii bow cV8l yam ak yam 03 bestgs
38 ove
tdatm tildntsl@ ods teri bls eaw at ,@v8l yvisurdsT at .veM Disou gntttew dvoid kw dorstd x02 sono
: . AS if seus.9d ,o@ snob yliasazsosn ton gad ed Yada beogys ed dngkm 3I zettyemn A dossM nt bos ,1sdmsas0 ot & a o3 gseimozq yrsunsl at A od asdt Iftw A bos ,1sdmox90 ototsd sib [liw0 dedy eldtesoq ef Jf ,0 sé Se3 (1) aetitis ef atdi of tawens aT .8 Ytitem of aobtkaceg so at etanioread to dst ,evjsje Isizoqe so ni asts16g cited aeoelq gosmegagns hiwow
gqroh
oa
Jad
oo
,lariopted
ofa
Io gonatekye
oti} adtoqmos
doidw
ni .U ~aslyd yd betqobs ssw wokv akd3) yiub douse to doserd s od ta tatido yliseis ecw th nauods . SEL .q 3s .oda8; .dgtnd ,v 32077 dotiw ob stede sii al vIn 07 tronequge os ei tomegegne me jada {£) etolsdosd & .A-3i 02 .tnemssig6 sdji to smiv of’ 326 9%e sekstisq ad B as Seimoyq
Jedd
[lilist
sonnsas
od ,tadasood
at @ ¢vxem of esatmorg
.v Ajxode mks 0.9 ,nemed bros yd haeestqxs asw wetv aldT ,rswobtw esw Jagmedsi2 ati suds bsigimdwe el 4% 7@Ob ,82E .8.0 8 [ab8l]esana2 od 03 al wolv jadi-bas ,sea sid to sbasbbosb ofsax oda do dxsq es -L_,asfyd to deda 03 besrsisig
/ ¢titaatelg
oda 03
LE
bat
at sgatiram of3 doistw to Somstiges0
6 38
Das!
sit od tom boor
Biers! Igex 2 9 een jw sf tadtadw se - thiaatalq ait y od
nevis
62% of
the
engagement,
married
another
The
may
provided
possible
to
sever
that
to
hold
of
is,
the
agreement
nullity.
For
agreement
that
marriage,
the
and
so
[E]
that
there
is
tainted
the
of
the
whole
to
the
defendant
reliefs,
public
(i)
is an
are
has
to
and
Other
are
parts
engagement,
express have
terms
of
the
but
sexual
be void
or
it may
that
is
some
treated
condition
tending
be
contract,
intercourse as
their
legal,
the whole term
in
of
part
as
a
the
before
to
immorality
OF PROMISE
law
property
in an or
given
relief
to marry
the
to
such
for and
are
obviously
for
action.
breach
as
of
promise
equity,
and
other
party
the
plaintiff
another, this
action
indemnity
etc.
equitable
defendant
illegal
would
and
specific or
the
restitution in view
performance,
injunction
from
to
forbidding
nature
of
a breach
of
such
Damages
contractual
a breach
of
obligation,
promise
the
action
principles
Vi.
SDOLL,
supra
Tote
24 at
28 Vv.
Hunt
[1908
1 K.e.
720.
is based
governing
27
Spiens
defendant
seiitleeng
common
available
Although
SHOLE
the
conditions
illegality
available
to marry
not
it
and
a valid
engagement
at
gifts
promise.
if
BREACH
damages
directing
when
conditions
the
with
parties
remedies
of
terms from
The
equity
such
legal
FOR
are
implied
various
the
is
contrary
in
the
that
example,
only
being
include
REMEDIES
marry
latter
person.
parties
contract,
the
372.
on
damages
are
more
akin
to
ga
*
a
-
~
is
Ae
:
oye
Warae
Ev -
heseA ‘
asd Snobrsteb odz aorw boltqmt gated x9998L oid, 3mm > se
9
i
2
qj
7
Ly.
yy Bo
9 =
t
}
' ’
j
:
é
at.
ie
’
_
i
vied? at emxe3 bre enotstbaos euotiay sbifomt yam a= ed yaar th Samah 91% saokitbaos bus emted dade’ tedt bebtyorg prs
{aveviae> 4d2 to eiteq IegolLt ot moxt Lagal-otid tevesoa efdtaaog tea smoe
tad3
6 a8 beadsetd
tud .anemegegns
ef slonw
onda
bitsy 6 ak 919d7 auld
vitingolit
ditw
beamls
bhod 03 ,el Jada
a jnsceeTgs sit to
o3 to mottibnaos to mist ees1qxe ae al ti °dh ,olqmaxs rol Stoted yitiisxomnt
seivosrssat of gntbnot
Isuxse
sve
09 STS plivteinen tes jai? Jnomestgs
es btov od biluow tnbmeysgrs
slodw oid, eget tran
¢ BS eek iOn sifdug
01 saimoig
to doestd
rot
mnoliviftiacx
bes
,vtivps
waiv
yizseq
rojo
mi
esanemrolttw¢@
gntbhbidiot doua
base
sft
sittosqe
noittonuiat
to savisn
sft
motos
of
wavig
es doue
to
wel
nommon
sf3
ylevolvde
48 aogensh
ets
-Oolios
vivian
wdonoid ong mor? gatilues: yilesvsan © .
a'ansbnstsb
ot
:
xsbtesos cals ysm 109 st? -Bo9 TUOBST Letrsdam
» i
i
2604
@ NGESS
VIF
: ele 40208 o:n ©1
|
Ler
.
a
|a vet
| ;
oa
64. (ii)
Seduction
A woman the
plaintiff
defendant,
inflate
the
induced
amount
may
method
increasing
cause
of
action
Provincial
may
provision
of
or
can
deprive
his
the
be
to
an
him
statutes
action
services
daughter.
is
Usually
to
= a charge
of
no
and
of
of is
of
for
loss
of
daughter's
subsequent
pregnancies
other
loss
of
service
follows
Bessala
v.
Stern
as
it
of
and
services.
In
India
of
the
having
will
confinements,
a consequences
of
caused but
the
and
the
plaintiff
a parent
to
with
by the
provided
defendant's
some
act,
31 [1876]
2 C.P.D.
265
(U.K.)
ay Ewert
v.
Seduction
Tetzioff
Act,
101959)
Alberta
28:WeW.R
R.S.A.
124
1970,
(B.C.).
Chap.
334.
Seduction-Act,—Mani-toba~R-SsM. —1954,5-Chaps-238Seduction Act Ontario RvS.0. 1960," Chap. 365. Seduction
Act
Prince
Edward
ReoreliertinLc LOSI GNAD. 2's Seduction Act Saskatchewan
Island
R.S.S.
1858,
1965,
15 Vict.
Chap.
23,
108.
33 There
are
no
such
Acts
in
Newfoundland
and
Nova
Scotia.
a
guardian
intercourse
be
as
father,
against
sexual
for
but
the
employer
a
exact
ntevaneegts
is a tort
services
The
for
or
as
the
damages
of damage.
necessary
guardian
itself
under
followed
to
by
a separate
seduction
province
loss
action
In Goede
head
longer for
paneea
promise
course
a result
the
attempt
from
seduction as
in an
a separate
father,
for
of marriage,
damages.
this
action
the
seduction
a charge
differ
it
an
only
of
as
plead
India
of
for If
does,
breach
quantum
Acts.
bring
In
the
taken
in Canada
Kingdom,
bring
in
be claimed the
rule
employer
United
may
frequently
damages.
pleaded
Seduction
seduction
general
be
and
by a promise
of
seduction of
may,
repealed
by
yd rotjoubsa heel 290b elineupsat ae sv
1
od dqmesie ms at ~ousktiem ‘to setmorg é ae
to/ioserd ods nt bebsstq od yam noljoubee
5 es Heatt mottos oatmor stsi1eqse
toftoybse
of3 ssbmu
To? a25gsmseb bswollot
tosxo
6q5
tikintslq ot
tnetsg
.esstvrsa
al
bes sibnt
J10d
6 tanlsge
babivorq
e'Imsbastsb
,etaemeniiaos
of3
Istontvord
to notetvorq
gos o3 xsyolqms to
,19dasl sit yind ,mobgath betial 107 motgo6s ns aniztd mpo
6 es esakvise
to mid sviaqeb
20 égol odd ¢ileveat
.xotdgueb eid
bas edtomengeta tmeupsedue
to eeonsupsenod
|
om af Ff sbeceo mt eferx Is19eqsg
3o tieest
od (Lhw esorviee
Jud
19t3ib sagbakee edt
Jt tot moltjoubse
A et
to seus
& BS bomtats od ysm dotioubss
to esol 10% aold98 5
Isuxee aay
esi3 vd beeuss
398
tognol
sit to teyolqms & nsibrsun
dtiw sexvootetnt
smoe
mori
lath mobtsubs2
2T
siszeqee
sfdi tot yxseesoon
,isdist
B 10% noted ad yam notjos
eds
et vemos
04 sootvorq
5 es tud Ce sontvoig mbitbisug
to sgtado
.sgsmsb to bes
siT
to bordism
To nu dR6Up ond antanoront
.eagémeb
Pisano ol
8 oe
ois iui
-eogemsb to ae
Sehansd bas stbot al
to oils 6
6 es ewollot solvaee
ea' rstdgueb
io seaol t9d3o
(.2i.U) 288 .c.9.0 ¢ [ONBE] Geese .v steased
fe
.(.D68) OSb A,W.W BS (Gee) nee qed, OVOL
.ALa.e6
SES Ladd AzeL Mee
,
Hf stone 130krok to
‘29 .qedd ,O9@L .0.8.H obzegnO
motsaubs?
yd bolssqot ,€S .tolv @! ,.82@6L baslel brew soaltd toA notaoubs2 tS
805
«qsdo
, 2ael
ecle e.8
-BE3008 svowl bos meaty
«qedD
, feet ok
2.4
newsrlstales? 398 aohioube2
ce& at edoA oue on, o18 pera a
big m ee
(OSE as,
for
example,
pregnancy from
the
ensues
the
nature
mere
parent
time
fact
of
when
another
at
resultant
for
the
the
that
his
daughter
of
Pegicney @
plaintiff loss
the
of
time
of
damages
to
but
his
at
be
no
to
awarded
feelings,
in the words
of
it must
service
can
will
not
daughter
must
have
time
seduction,
however,
whether
debauched
the
occurred,
irrelevant
loss
been
the
recourse
may
if
has
is
hand,
Moreover
both
the
ee it
other
that
service
without
injury
"illogical"
On action
loss
Heavy
not. the
the the
or
prensa
of
a cause
service
a nervous
of
so
her
the
that,
parent
to
the
pride
have
to bear
she
will
and
sense
to
terey
v.
Hutchinson
(1847)
nee
so long ago as the practice
& P.
303.
I Exch.
61.
E.R.
3.0.8.
36 (1868)
at
compensate
of honour.
35 Grimwood
in
serving
34
v.
been
is
it is founded."
Eager
the
if
plaintiff
of Blackburn,
2 C.
give
and
had become inveterate of giving to the parent, or person in loco parentis, damages beyond the mere loss of service in respect of the loss aggravated by the injury to the person seduced. In effect, the damages are given to the plaintiff as standing in the relation of parent, and the action has at present no reference to the relation of master and servant beyond the mere technical point in
(1826)
shown,
the
the
the
anyone.
reality merely nominal; and Lord Ellenborough's time...
Manvellv. Thomson
be
seduction
"In form the action is by the master, having the right to the services of a servant and having lost the benefit of those services by reason of the wrongful act of the defendant; but though in form this is the nature of the action, the damage by loss of service is in
which
follow
599,
602.
This
him
may
be
of3 48 bas mottoubse sd to sank oft is dtod titanisig ef3 io satvise antvise
af ode tH ,Jsda of ,bexiwo.0
sotvise Jo-agol sf2 nedw omb3 ‘
end reed o3 sved [Liw tnsasq sod ,nottoubse odd to omls sd3 38 radtoms .oroyne oF satyoosx Juoritw eeol jnsiiuaey mid odsansqmoo sd yem etdT
o3 ttttntsla
.1ruv0mod
to sense
ae, grived
ot
o3 bebtswe od yam asgemsb yveoll
bas sbhtug
,egntiset
etd of yawiet
edd sot
L ,aruddosld 16 ebrow sdt of aud ‘isokgollt!
,t93asm sf4 yd ef motzos sdj3 mii ar”
brs tmpyies & to esotvree sit ot tdgia odd vd agoivisa seodt to ikitenead odd teol gnkvad cdnsbasisb of1 to tos Luigaoxw sds to moekot efj to smutsn sit ek Btls miok tt dguods dud
ni sk sokv1se
to aeol
yd sgameb ofa .mobjos
ak ogs gaol o2 bas ;lantmom ylotom ytiisex sotaonta
,ineteq sa
aif5
en’
Piguoteddelld
brol
oF gmtviy to eteyeteyvat smeded bad
bnoyed gegsmab ,abinsisq ooo! mt moexeq 20 sd3 lo Js9q29r nk sotvase to seof sxsm sd3 noeieq sf3 0% yaupnh sy yd besevergge eeol
movig sig eogemsh 344 ,3292%s nl morkssis1
sit of shthnete
.beowhes
es Vitjntealq adit of
on dnsestq ts and notice od} bap .agomeg to bos s9dasm
jo motjseisx sdd of.
mk totoq Isstadosd
ie
stem‘ st bnoyad. dnevise " bo bauox at ai dotriw
008 64 2 9 $ (S60) goamedt .v ses * (18 oie
‘rreet
CRABEY:oe +¥ apasd
so. -
, oomett
Sat
:
>
at"
6 pe OTEN
7
Oe
Be
66. Consequently unchaste
damages
before
himself
Canada,
presumption
bring
favor
the
the
loss
Act
it
from
the
action
persons
for
damages
action
It
to
is
claim
seduction
Damages
may
nervous
shock
(iii)
also
as
and
also
of
for
heads,
recovered
for on
Damages
and
for
such
the
United
the
plaintiff
child
loss
was
for
illness
oe
the
breach
This
caused
the
the
herself
is
and
quite
India
to
plaintiff's
of
through of
brings
person
in Canada
born
irrebuttable
a person
Kingdom of
principles
Exemplary
plaintiff
seduced
the
the
been
a statutory
by Tey
damages
in physical
is
for
any
the
had
oo
where
in the
suffered
daughter
where
there
suffered
available
maintenance
Special
dakier Act,
the
and
services,
damages
possible
resulting
her
is possible
separate
be
where
seduced
Seduction
of
for
reduced
daughter's
action
services.
for
his
the
distinct third
to
Under
been
defendant
under
in
ca ukctavea to
the
unmarried
In
have
such
promise, the
law
by the
in
of
an
damages
auerioniee torts
for
breach.
Damages
29) Verry
voeWatkine
(13836)
WR.
30.8.7
599,,
602.
38 Fleming v. Miller (1923) 25 O.W.N. 183, action for seduction by girl's father. Pregnancy prevented her from rendering him daughterly services. The court stated that mere fact of pregnancy was sufficient proof of interference with the girl's ability to render services and it was not necessary to actually prove loss of services.
39 Collard that in loss of py the seduced
v. Armstrong (1930) 4 W.W.R. 879, the Alberta court stated Alberta, the fiction that damages could only be obtained for services by father or employer for seduction was abolished, Seduction Act, 1903 Chap. 117, Sec. S, Lind Schedule. A woman is entitled to bring one in her own name. R.S.A. 1965.
40 Majoket
v.
Bratussheski
(1942)
2 W.W.R.
97.
sav Witakelq, siaowdw, mpeyers
b a
NE sodt30m saosin etd09 nT ey a)! pada (SUA nottsubed odd) sebau,sbeas)
oiinsidkterit: iabderihse edt agnizd noatsq
« fave axed
s9olviee 30 boat to ova? mt nobsqnvesxg
ilseted ooarsg bsoubes sd3 402i. oldlaaog ak32 toA edo soba
stip el eldT 04 skbnI
SC + reason yd bexsttve asgsmab 102 fohtos edd gutxdos
bos mobgaty% bosttall edt mi olde lifave aottze as mort sonkterb
a'iiidatsiq
ada
to eeol
off
1xot betotive
segsmsb tol
enoersq braids
ns dove at shane ot Yitinislg sis 10% sldteaog oale et al asgansh
Oe
,satmory
wotiapite rot
ei107
86, sores
to dossad
ait dguordt to wel
-fosead
snd
yot
miod
esgamsb
biido
to eslabonixg
sda yd bsevs®
yis
,ebsod
sdeysqee
402 sonareiniem
as misio. o2 gsoliss
bre sokitoubea
sits m0 lekaiibed ad oels
aeeontil Leokeyiq
.soptvise
tot
yam ssgamed
ai antsioget Anode
avovien
ag2 (tit)
£03 ,002 .€.0 € .A.d (O68L) eablsa¥.v yxx9V
ve BE
yd notdoubae sot roitos ,€6L .U.W.0 ¢& (e8el):: -v got inetdageb mid goivebio: mov? wed batnsvesq yous .todjst e'ixtg eew ¥onAy2e 79 to 3952 stom deny berste 4368 -asotvise asbne1
-asdivise
of yititds
atisty
to egol avon
sid dyiw sons 13 Ts Ik to
vibews of OF Yuseesoen
tnostottive
Jom en 4% ban aeciviee ee
bovesa tyvos atszediA odt .Rva .A,W.W & (OLOL) vy bislloo 10% bemtesde sf yino bluos esgamch ada otsont ~ (satedlA ot tedd -bottetiods enw aottouboe 101 ysyolqms 10 yod35t a agoivise to gaol A .9fpborfoe bolt .8 .99@ , VIL .qedd f0CL , 494 moktouhe2 ola yd’ COOL .A.2.8 .4men nwo. sed nt iro: gatad o4 bafdhane at nemow bansnnect
TO wait © (SHO) sdsianunat sada L@s
er
|
ee re Indian
The plaintiff
in a breach
incurred
by her
etc.
some
is
~ and
In reason
for
cases
for
oe he Canadian courts
have
of
special
promise
action
hospitalization the
court
has
the
amount
increasing
during
damages
pregnancy,
considered and
rer willing
been
that
awarding
to
for
grant expenses
travel
the the
fact
the
expenses,
of
seduction
plaintiff
exemplary
erences
seen who
An unusual
example
in Shaw v.
Sie
described
ceremony years
of marriage
later
unknown
to
to
damages
implied held
that her,
"marriage' for
himself
she his
the
for
that
capital
she
sum
as
in
and
it was
first
which
of
not
was
She
contract
she
would
became
after
his
the marriage
still
alive
sued
at
his
of marriage,
that
and
that have
this
he was
went
death
to a man
through
because
the
time
of
14
his
representatives a breach
of
married.
of damages from
a
intestate
void
already
entitled
to be
was
alleging
not
is
engaged
personal
the measure been
head
subsequently
until
then
promise
recover
They
that
wife
under
the plaintiff
discovered
the
awarded
a widower.
plaintiff.
could
to
damages
In 1937
breach
warranty
of
his
was
an
It was 41000,
estate
the
had
ay Gupte:
"Hindu
Law of Marriage''
(Bombay
- 1961)
at 25.
42 H. v. H. (1947) 2 W.W.R., 695 (Alberta). $377 special damages for hospitalization
The plaintiff was during pregnancy.
awarded
43
Verboski awarded
v.
Hunt,
$2500
[1945]
general
Manitoba
and
$1000
Reports
exemplary
342.
The
plaintiff
was
damages.
44 COs)
OP AdIn
Seecalso was
awarded
deceit
hk.
Tseheids $8000
perpetrated
DoGs
v.
CsA”
(Us Ke)
Tscheidse
damages.
"No
(1963)
41 D.L.R.
monetary
by the defendant."
138
compensation
(Sask.) can
Plaintiff cure
the
v8
r
=
J
oft Imayg03 goiLLiw need oved axxo
~nethens®
mw
“
Fe i
aganagxs 2? segemsh [stoaqe notion setae 20 -esemqus [avert ,yonsngetq gttavh nobsestlesiquod tot dihiendonent
gottoubes to 398% of ania bexeblenoo aed amos od e9es9 smog mI ots yselqmexs Iittnkelq ef1 gntbtsws bas Jnvoms 9fs gniesstont 103 mogse7 et any
-eogemsb
gd o4 et Baer efl4 robry tin & OF bSgegaa omadod
Yo smtt
eovitsinsesiqst
Io doserd
sin
3]
Sdd
ts evils
& enigelia
Liinu
jon
to sxvesom
esgamBpb
esw
ber! ststes
etd
CS
most
te
S03
desks
sitw
oistl
aeit o3 mwonlau
‘bgnrete orig ot ‘egstrxem'
aff
nods
to yrromet39
sie tedd aedsl etssy boreveoath
eaw
[ftsa
,sgairism
esw 3k bes sgetrzem
isd?
to osatmoxrg to fosstd rot esgemsb 102
.bstrism wpseste jon esw ed Jada
,OOOL[d
-v were ob nese
ow .1ewobkw e as Moeembd bsdirsesb
abd bsue
Isnoatsq
eit
vod?
blov eaw sgsivzam oft
seunosd
esw
16428
ahd
disob
Mf stetesint
as
PItsntala ofa VERL mI
tnew yloneupsedua
« dguotds
std
bobraws esgentsh to slqams feyeuny mA | t
tostiaos, od2 nt yinatisw
ditt bos tevoon7
balitsias msed ave
(L901 = a
bfuow sde
blues dotdw
sd2
botfqmt
jada
ot me
bled
Isitqso
“oan iy
Sb
behisws
asw tittaisia ofT -Yonsngerg
aew tortnkslq
titinialsI
(. A262)
(Seiedtis 20a,Abs £ ene
goibrub notsesitettyeod: roF »
sdT
.Ss& a2axoqg—a® mua
BEL
vod, d DA (Edt)
-asgemsb yielamoxs 0002
eft s1vo fa nolisensqmoo Vrase om ob
bn
" jasbasteb sft xt
v Se git 2 a tte?
68. She
in’fact
(iv)
the
as
presents
basis
and
an
breaks
the
woman
not
ring It
off
only
and
given
cash
be
of
are
gifts
by either Other
- which
not
are
is broken
off,
there
presents
which
is widely
believed
that
the
engagement,
it
off
applies
she
she
so
can
must
that of
parties
engagement
there
is
if
the
keep
third
no
the
strictly
return
gifts,
may the
woman
return
when the
vy.)
ring,
been
general
other
Christmas
keep
ee
the
but
it
engagement breaks
and
if
it
the
[L017]
soe Ve
muck
the
made
during
the
is
that
ring, is
off
woman
if
whereas
submitted
with
off
the
if that
without
justification,
breaks
it
off
with
it.
have
given
absolute
2 Keb.
L922]
return
is broken
gifts
right
of
to
either
party
ecaceny: | but
os
Davis
to
rule
SoZ
47 JOtLrey
v.
contemplation
be duty
have
can
the man
may
46 Jacobs
to the e.g.,
in
L5 eo, Lick
in Seller
party
given
property
recovered.
Where
POVA
and
stated
recovered.
other
the
justification,
recovery
Ring
justification; claim
the
to marry
presents
be
and
breaks
rule
can
widow.
contract
may
engagement
engagement.
man
the
personal
may
engagement
he
his
effect
Gifts
Engagement
When
legal
of
of marriage
of marriage
this
of
which
follows:
in prospect
(v)
status
principles
on
faa
the
Restitution
The
given
had
S53)
le lotn
too
UW.) «
to
the
it would
appear
are aa:
x +19q07 q
4
*
.
:
7
‘
vie, @ \3-tne'td
oAT een
vooam ‘sAd “soottefakinai
to bas asit ad
:
—
ay wetter ntbossie oye yrisam ot tqnsaqy2 onsjo atasd 943 no nevig wet « ae Ant ~ es tewolfol ettid on deas mevig wd shddte yeriio siti o3 ydtsBq >,
.bersvoos7
,elitg tedz0
..9.9
esmietidd
mt mevig
nolisiqmatcoes
don
sts
dotiw
ae
——
sgsixzism to tosqeorg at
od —
,
- adneestg tivetbe bas ajnsastq
.beteveost sd ton yen sgelt1em Yo
|
:
Bata soomozsgod (v) ed3
nisje1
ot ytub od ysm exeda
aia
gntaub
sbam
svsd
need
as comW
.ito assoxd 2k tceusgegre tsddo
einesestq
yem doldw
hes got
jsid bajstimdue
at jt $id amet: nzuje1
juorltiw Yio posotd ~aoitesritsent djiw
tio 31
qosod oso nemow 913
, gait od
daiw etesid
ei smossgegas iio
31 edserd
osmow
grt
2
Joomegagae
.amemegsgas
od} 2t jedi ei olux Ieteqog oid aedd beveticd ylebiw ak 92 2: anstsdw
.Jasmeysgm> of3 To exlsotd osm
Jaum Sie 2203% edsord asmow ods
od¢ nodw vitorrte eetiqgs ylno slur aids mem edd) Ib dedd bas
subs aia
o8
pootdaoliitses[ Isgel
Jo mrudjox
atats ms. of
od
.ti qeel oso sie ,motisolitzaut As
eid 03 y3xhq
:
r9ldis
oF atitg asvig svel abidasq bitds sisdW
s5309 woqgs Bluow Jf dud Wrevoos 40 ddghy oiuloeds om at 1943 Inomeg » 7 *
aft
pe
Ee
BE; Bod se faret] | 7 SEE oe
Arey
as
ie [v£el]
ci
7
Tagaa® a'ebixd mot] setsgol
ebtovs
6 to odnob
ylevotbute .isvewol
sd4+ daria emooe
sau3ista
31
[setovinu
.ytwob gittbanwiily Resecinede: githedth J s neve to
oeqd
.me9 sila ashi
boas
,bisq
et
to yew ¥d betevessx
Ec
-ojotisb
tisg
soisslabgel
fottesup
ai
e1s9qqe
Isivoa
sdT
esttueq
31.
oso
oo
2tdt
bas
Io sostq
Joeqmt
nottsleisst
bonsilaws odd ejnges1qes et a
,yoosvioamt ak sengtaes yo.
tisexsH
943
yrwob oft
ofa
auottidim
.yvietone
zwsitis yliset
yIwob B ,29A
od Jonnmay
sas
|
sdt 102 ,.viwob sft oo Sagks on asd vo sved . xed
.tnsees oid
ay
sbhivd ‘odd mt at gtkseov
a'asbfod ofa daiw .3b ngtees
to petdtereaaecon ak
.bostamefoe
jostia0p
s et
isyeifh
,sxusiW
od od elts? sgstizam os esw 3k r0Ob ,»diwe
IDA adbiterdor
yvrwod oT
»? » 2
.
ae cai sag 992 OF Joy oven ow dotdw to _ +adiodw
et dneaitizeq Jeom eomoosd Moidw
Iieeit notislergel eiz seating qwoiveded Istooe
10 aootdo
bewove
off
.ysekooe Fo Ifiw bre ‘oset> eno5
oils ssd3adv bas ,yawob to Ihve [éto0e os To mobteobbexs ad4 etbedducban B no baguse ad yino tao Jon 16 soatdo att svetdos Iitw sjudaze nk xexwob es mwont mood asd tedw to oqusea fsutos etfs Yo sotisiebianen.
7
Tees society
old
down
the
ages.
as
the
hills
though
its
effects
to
differences
the
concerned. to
be
The
arranged
commoners,
have
held
long
as
well
from
some
somewhat
the
demands
far
the as
added
the
are
of
the
heart
and
have
of
the
though
the values
as
as
will
of
result
permission
of
the
the
the
of
spirit
It may
in marriages
social
assent
background
of
be
of
the
may
stem
least
so
are
questioned, marriages new
form
home
and
that
concept
of
social
the
in
the
economic
settled the
where
at
the
submitted
may
rapacious
to which
and
and
even
to
in every of
remain
seem
be
by the
elders
still
so
in
society
arranged
of values
will
complaints,
It may
dowry,
Thus,
clauses,
man,
subjected,
said
marriages
effect
hearts
common
be
or
dowry
Indian
living.
can
now.
proportions
emancipation
and
even
some
the
of
society
arranged
penal
participants
presiding
outmoded.
tempo
of
the
frivolous in
is
alteration
active
the
The
colossal
concomitant
have
as
according
houses
remains,
may
is
society
of what
world,
phase
concerned,
the
of
prevalent
against
to which
standard
somewhat
of women
bridegroom
represent
it
future
independence
are
though
merely
act
present
stresses
of women
are
restraint
assumed
different
princely
Hindu
another,
civilized
structure
marriages
of
The
have
spite
evil,
made
foreseeable
the
in
not
sense
classes
importance
activity
and
every
manifestations.
of altered
whether
and
the
or
concomitant
the
by safeguards
economic
demands
or
though
worst
and
form
been
amongst
arranged
parents.
middle
altogether
its
dowries
severe
the
however,
for
whether
in
have
is the
immemorial
forms,
fear
money-grabbing
dowry
of
one
existence
Christendom
blunted
some
in
in
organization
and
time
of
and
from
in
dowry,
implications
that
marriages
in various
instil
been
in the
institution
mitigating
fact,
its
fact,
sway
the
has
and
whether
disguised
though
and
In
and
bride
and
those
who
be obtained
in
gubbiosos taotetitbh nesd sved ‘cial ait b biae od nso Jari to das dEmoges aria et sneha 129
ro eeawod yloontiq Jagnoms xeiteriw bas2
eogeltzem begnsrrs ~bl10w what odd, xo ncaa. oe
_
vashoow of% Yo etydoutse bos sokiestiasgio eda ek |
/
ai, qootts omos over yam dos oda dgaors ag
auoineqei
tenisge abrsugetse yd bodnuld
avolovis?
,ejntslqmos
tam
nt interjeox
ond
to eaysed
teadwomoa dguorlt
bas 1892 smoe
to Senas
guiisgtsio
[rsant
nsitbnl
yistooe
to ssedq yagastg
sdT
5
|
Iisw 4
aa
giadw
ik
auolray nk boatugetb
.enolisseS Uinem deamow 22f. lo one
sil
Iensq
,agauslo
vsotigerte e879qommO of
aied bs gitsiI1s ao Hiosayeat sent aii 38 gaol
nkemet I[Liw yxwob ,eakamst ie
aeya
boganrss dot
Sts bre, Istiomemn) emtd moa yewe bled sved
Iinsfavsiq
.won nove
,euil
7
ams
cada goidds7g-yonom bas ah
os
densi
ds
[seaoloo
enotizoqeyq
od mse
m@32
ada
nommos
.nam
gis ddtdw o3 ,bedostdse od ven JI
,benottesup
dqeanes
wor ort
Isivoe to moi ait
ban
ort
to colssxeiis
to ditiqa
.
bis cotisqtonems
oft
to asiqe -mk xed tore .tevewod
eds dguots .Litve red3egoitis 918
sit 28 tistem ton bre aivisas
Jbaboiniuo Indusmoe Sb Sian Svad Saued offs Yo oqmea sia swav? sidssses702
Lib e esgettrsm ak sivest bas sbixd ofa yd bofoie
odw esos bas arable od to sasee6 bas at bacieddoe4d itse
Steves
sviIos es asmow to gons7 Yoqm ‘edd Yo
gnibkestq
ify at Jed? boddtndun od you 41 ntmonoos
moxt
okmonoss
to baehinde baxetts Yo abmsemab ont bebbs
yxsve ni aaneqrotiisg
bas omod
|
at -bonseanes sis e9ensts sibbtm odd as sBt
.gnivif
esulay
por asi+wwob to? aboameb sd3
ot esesstta
,.yIwob lo instimoome9
begaerxs
zegatrism
dotdw
bomuacs
yeu hooiied sein ma
£
Vos many
cases.
change
This
of
present
social
act,
seems
to be
background
therefore,
demands
of unscrupulous
the
statute
book
[G]
SETTLEMENT
(i) Ante
Nuptial
party,
viz.
marry
such
as
of property
or
the marriage
after
settlements. in
India.
settled
is
Basically
the marriage
more
field
come
well
remain
in the
. in
It
place,
of marriage
This
between
(e.g.
may
and
type
and
curb
an
of
types
General settlement
i.e.
of active
for
may
Settlement oettlement
Act, Act,
HUaja ear
Whee be
of of
It may
The
be made
either
Ontario
or
be
property,
mostly
v.
by and
to dowry)
as
before
to
dowry
however,
may
be
partly
settlements.
between
of
compared
by common
wage
to
post-nuptial
governed
of marriage
contract
consists
may
is
the
which
ante-nuptial
contract
made
to
by a third
Privy the
by
law. Ina
Council
parties
Poilers
Manitoba R.s.M. 1954, Chap. 155: Sask, B.Sao. 1965, Chap. 339.
GSS Sr MS Ree3 5 - CBs C.D
56
The
litigation.
be made
a contract
settlement
(comparable
ao CWS
the
some
ornament
54 Marriage Marriage
with
disappear.
may
a party
; 54 provinces and
two
father)
is
in Canada.
some
are
which
of marriage.
common
Attorney
distinguished
to
meant
necessarily
uncle.
takes
there
case,
may
a contract
is not
in view
not
statutes
parents,
is
or
voluntarily.
ee; provincial
leading
who
A concept It
of dowry
is well
used
things
Settlement
a father
transfer
evil
of
IN CANADA
settlement
a person
shape
it
a weapon
MARRIAGE
A marriage
the
though
the
than
the
ce
to
set
a
|
.
bo
ive
rf)
oda d3iy barsom 03agaida 30saaiteodd oat awe
brtd3 OJ
Liew yam yaob Io, Siva. od
2 yd sbem sd yem dotdw
JoB13m0>
of3
oF yIteq
jositaoo
B yl iiseascon
Yo etatanos dofdw toszinoo s at 11 s1oted
tefjte sham 9d vem 31
Inidqun-Jeoq yiwob
03 Bbotsqmos
ed ye
od yam tnemeissoe
,tsvawol
vd vistisq
-wel
6 al
.3.!
.yiisqoiq
benisvog
commos
sft
yd yiaeom
2 SLY 9 RAIA
to wolv mt yasqo7g
,sonlq ssisd sgeiitam
.sbensd
ail josisno5
Jon ef ofw goetaq
.sfony x0 tedde2 & es dove cere
.sysixtam
to Intitque-stes
& al Jmemeijitez sgeizzsm a :
to sgyi
sgetrxem 9d? 19336 10
to aqeono0o A
at nambaa etd?
Io reieas73
-2amomeltisa
ton et 31
.stbal ot
-eltrsiaulov belsiee
bre re cpanivnts ange at essutaje : Istontvorg . ,
.aijasmeitise esttutem to asqys ows pte axed? yilsokesd#
Ltonyod yvixt “yr
~~
.v gixeja0 xo} Lsi9seD ysmze332A ,saso, gathsel
oF agtizeq ort msowied bas yd sham Jasmelttee aeswied bedatugalzatb
a2 :ewolloi
2s
(yxwob o3 sidsasqmon)
(xorig6?
.
.g.8) ogeitram ‘sd?
~~ ee!
ae
.22I .qedd ,seOl M27 sdohinat PY. jnomsi3392% egeizisM CLE gerd, COOL .2.2.5 .aeee .IoN InemelIe2 sgakrteM +!
®
|
+ Ca.8y28 bapa 5h hand
may
Bashy
|
74.
"There
is a clear
line
of demarcation
between two classes of settlement made in consideration of marriage. The first class, a settlement made by a husband on his own marriage for the benefit of his wife and the issue of the marriage, is a settlement which as between the settlors is made for the most valuable consideration imaginable, that of marriage. words, the husband's covenant
In other or transfer
of property under such a settlement is the price paid by him for the hand of his bride with no element whatever either of gift or
bounty But
the
second
marriage
of
with
the
class
his
of marriage
son
truly
In
moving
imaginable’.
The
follow element iin, (eines
his of
this to
to
or
the
oe
(e.g. is
not
case
the
bounty,
Class
Essentially
as
but
marriage.
gift
iilesic
daughter)
made
it
one
is not is
true
'the
settlor
totally
In
second
but
this
by a father made
to
say
highest
class
element
of
the
of marriage
that
the
consideration
of marriage distinct
on
in consideration
in consideration
consideration
this
made
a settlement
settlor
so-called
results own
settlement
enough,
settlor.
upon
of or
consideration
based
involved."
in
from
there
is
such
a case
those
which
found
an
gift
is
not
even
latent
may
be
differentiated
Seicielleuemie-
these
two
types
of
settlements
follows: 1.
Marriage to
the
(a)
settlement
contract
Parties
-
made
to marry. same
as
between
Vat Low “‘Trustrd@
957)
L21aW. Woks
parties
ey
those
a7)
Re
the
@2e00Be C.)’.
in marriage
contract.
is
Moana istijo cl
olde .s
@
Jan
yetens1? 10 inghevos a basdesd edd .2 9d2 a tngmslijee 5 pty:ieane eae 1o
sbitad eid to bra oid to? mht yd big to tits to iusntis vevedady 3
sd2 no softs? 6 vd abam sro
4
.3.3) tnomelites bas
bnoose aie tua
-
notjatshtenos
$e
> on a Aske | ae. yal an as Ty re
ot sbam Jesmelititee
s at
(ses
pat
;
ae
gueb 0 moe aid to ee !
to noftsisbtenos
—
at sham
Jom
sud
etiguone. “Murra oystoman% Te Fi
sH2 tea ype o3 outt noltsrsblenod
tesdgth aft’
et solitee sdd of pn s
Jontietb ylisjos
et 91943
agslo
®
asve
jon
ak Jitg
: 7
ieee 7
7
baosoa
i
¢%
to jnsmels
’
v
.'sidant
Ml
soltjoe sft 63 ejfiuest aoqu beosd elds ol
.egeitism nwo etdi wollod
5
Jae3sl
i
mes
2i seo s dove ot sgstrsam to soltersblanoo ballao-oe oAT
as bauot
7
ton et tI sano etd3 at pan Aeee elles td
S.
doidw seod2 moxi
-
:
8
Tew
OW
oki} sud «Caued 10 sits to anemele
”seem say So. aebks: saad eit at 1) & os Go
betsitiasystiib sd ysm etnemelttoe
to asqyt
ows seeds geet vig a,
&
:
ale
eststagq sit naswied sbam tnomeliiee sgstrieM
AS
ites o3 Jopriaoo siz a
.Josxdn0D sgettzem mk seod3 ea omse
- esttist tay
:
-
oe
=—_
i
a
“Ff . aicas ee
of
|
;
(b) Agreement to
the
- to transfer
other
and
property
usually
also
by one
to
their
children. (c)
Consideration
each
The
2.
-
other.
No
husband-to-be his
on
children
(if they
Marriage
settlement
father)
fact
element
usually
property
(e.g.
the
of
and
marriage
gifts
agrees
bride-to-be
have
of
and
any
settle
marriage).
a third
to
bounty.
their
after
between parties
to
or
to
the
party
marriage
COUEGACE.
(a)
Parties
one
or
-
third
both
(b) Agreement on
one
party,
parties
to
- by third
or
contract
both and
e.g.
and
the marriage
party
parties
usually
father
to
also
to
contract.
settle
property
the marriage on
their
children.
(c) Consideration of The
gift
father
to-be the
or
(or
the
other
groom
too,
subject
treated
Element
bounty. third
agrees
usually).
matter
legally
as
of
party) to
engaged-to-—be-married
children the
or
- quasi-contractual.
settle
couple
The such
an
of
the
bride-
property
(and
property
on
their
which
agreement
on
is
is not
a ices
58 Attorney-General
for
Ontario
v.
Perry
[1934]
3 W.W.R.
35
(B.C.).
a4
ot1308 O2 aestge reliaceea
—"
bes sd-oo-sbiwd ain bo !
. (9gstrxam 192ts yns sved ysd3 24) nobis
Yiweq bridy 8 asewisd jnemeljiee eystiisM saeizrem aft o3 29lt1sq
bne
(19381
‘
.g.9)
sy *\ ein te . ape as
.t9813509 bia sedis .Jostino>
.g.9
.¢ixsq
sysiarem silt od
biids
- astii6f (s) .
tod
estizsq
ah am, “ae
to sno
ytrsqomq sizes of ydaeq brids xd - Jnemegaga (d) ogeiizam sft od estixeg
diod 10 eno fo
.
aioe
:
ve
atten3 co esis yilsvau bos Jostim0e9
” Snomeia
.isutostIaoo-lesup
-¥Y3nuod
~-sbi3ad efi io (ydteq buids
moabi ido
- motiprebtenod to 3itg to
(95)
:
t lw
-
7)
a
|
7 ,
-
ae oda
ne oo ain moti
:.
5—
«.(yileuey ,oot nesblids
jon et tmemesxge as slove Yo ret4am gos{dua sd3
a
.
ie
ally bie a
2C9.A)2 AWW €[EOE] yaa ow9
ar. a
ie
oar
2
om A
f
usdto +o) tefiai sdT
ao bas) siquos serial
at dotiw ysreqoxq offT
-
2
0 yireqor sities of seetg6 mootg 243 to sd-o2
ates
'
Af a one
>
er
vn
a
f;
762 (ii)
Post
Marriage
wife
a husband
difference
settlements
as
in view ment
of
valid
into
is
date
ante-nuptial
is made
settlement
have
view
of
turns
which
out
to
marriage
is
the
the
that
of
the
fact
v.
Kennedy
is
needs
made
before
It
of his
the
the
of
could
is
wife
qua
the
parties
If
to
the
the
it
is
of
was
made
entered
(or
Semble
voidable)
a post-nuptial to
valid
the
marriage
in
subsequently
settlement.
If
nevertheless
made,
voidable,
a
the marriage
marriage
be proved
settle-
contracting
Parties
settlement
can
the marriage
property
'marriage'
existing
the
of marriage.
ante-nuptial
is valid
an
settlement
if
the
marriage
fact
By contrast,
of
affect
of
actually
of marriage.
fact
the
the
the validity
is made.
but
upon
if
marriage
fact
of
post-nuptial
a settlement
Thus,
then
the
that
and
the marriage
but
marriage,
(viz.
the marriage).
future
is validated.
the
this
the
depends
date.
settlement
be void,
in the
to
If
knowledge
a presumption
ignorant
after
after
The validity
future
oe
is voidable,
defect
settlement
settlement
settlement
for
validity
is void,
Ne
made
ante-nuptial
parties
some
ante-nuptial
eens
marriage.
the
at
a future
settlement
the
upon
either
(viz.
their
marriage
marriage
at
eee
between
a future
depends
be
to provide
regards
ante-nuptial
may
post-nuptial
in a post-nuptial
The
An
or
for
Settlements
settlements
the marriage) possible
Nuptial
had
that and
the there
knowledge
of
parties
were
the
parties
59 Hicks
[1956]
20 W.W.R.
517
(Alberta).
60
See
Jackson:
[2969R="
2nd.
''The Formation ed.)
at
p.
and Annulment
114—Lis.
of Marriage'',
(Butterworth)
gasixxsm fsiaqun-seoq -8Reit1sm
to Jost
sbem yotsqorg
~9ljdse
siz ncogu abusqsb
jo tnsmoltiea
{stiqun-otne
& gottosyinos
batetas
bas’ Istiqua-sian yee sonsistitb siT yatbilev hope Aueans es etnemeltioa
s ek tnemelijos agety1am {stiqua-sine oA
sdi3 io yitbtisv siT
ylisutons
‘oxgsiszem'
sgsixzwm sdt
sda
tt ,eudT
sgeiviem sautut & to wotv at
oF
agizxeq
.935b
9f3..moqu ebnsgqeb Jaen
arudut saoe 2s egetrzem blisv
sgetuism 9d1 to yiibiisy 9d3 ded3 .bbov ef stab eautu2 6 36 osat (eldsbtov
sidme® ro) biisv ef sgstutem off GI
[stiqua-j20q sii
nt sgsttysm
& ,tesrinos of
sedis
21
.bosshriav’
.sgetsrsm
bilsy gnijetxs
yisneypsadve of?
asiare
yd
as
sgsisism sit .tnemesftise
Siow peiixaq asititeq
dst
ofa bos
bsvorq
= jos]
ti
dootts
ot
od nso
,.oldsbtov
sdt
esw
Latsqua-esaa-ond
xetts sham
et tosmelt3ee
evel tnomelajse
oka ait tremsitjte2a ad4 dotdw to wetv blues
2t tnsmsitise
io egbsiwoml bed insmeitis
i
haley een
oie
tothe
isis
‘ DAL,
dai*
iad:
40d soa> Coun
: 7
ib
82s
CHAPTER CONTRACT [A]
REQUISITES
THREE
OF MARRIAGE
OF MARRIAGE @
The
Hindu
"conditions'
The
show.
regarded
those,
Thus,
all
though
The
are
the
that
liberal
for
marriage
first
risk
scheme
somewhat may
of two class
the
advances
of
is
for
such
capacity
will
last
between
which
be void.
to marry
two
may In
down Hindus.
of the Act be dis-
the
second
the marriage
void
ab
century
been
retained,
have
all marriages
Samskara
lays
the provisions
conditions
that
purposes
as
render
the
disingenuously
solemnized
sorts,
marriage will
adopted
be
come
of which
practical
provision
1955,
in fact
disregard
the
the
Act
In
Act,
which
are
without
come
as
under
'conditions'
plainly
the
Marriage
1
type
celebrated
initio.
under
marriages.
between
the
two
Hindus
are
Goes: (i)
(ii)
(iii)
Neither
party
time
the
of
Neither
party
time
The
bridegroom
the
spouse
living
at
the
is an
idiot
or
a lunatic
at
of marriage;
and
time
a
marriage;
the
years
has
the
has
completed
bride
the
age
the
of
age
of
18
15 years
at
of marriage.
1
J Sacrament
(A set
of
ceremonies
performed
to
accomplish
marriage).
2
J.D.M.
Derrett,
"Hindu
Law
- Past
XXV,
1955
and
Present"
5 The
Hindu
Marriage
Act
Section
5.
(Bombay)
(1951)
at
94.
f
¥
>
a8 (A)
;
, ,22@f , 39h, avob ays! ylevounsgatekb Jarlwomon |
en SS
esa
Sat
ane
phat
a
7
a.
oo
¢
.
J
7
DPS
-,
7
an
oe
slew:
sgek:
snotatbnoa"
oe ent
|
§
JoA siz io wiestbedts 9f3 ab ,eti0a ows to 3 smoo we+ 2 oft ae
-atb od yam dotiw anotsibnos
.btov sd fiw ogatrssw
broose sii nI .ottint
Litw oe brsgszatb once Aye on
ds biov sgettiam od3 1sbasx
, bonisie:
sved
nesd
yiuins.
’
3 beee
efit te esonsybe fsvadht a3
jesl
ifs vend
my
sobau betsidefss esgsixzzem ifs 3si3 dove et bedqobs Smodoe edi dguort * aogett1a sqvi to sedems2 eseoqiug fsotioexq tot s18 329A ort sis
eubntH
owt
oft
nsawied
10% aolsivozq
o3 y3toeqso
yiam
© ewollo? as -
: afi
s asd yixsq rSsitket (+)
sevoqa
is yotvtl
faut ohan sda to smi $s atfzanul
s 10
as
Jolbi
al vais
sedate
a
oft ;
/
r ,
-
| | nf
(+t)
sogsiissot 30 smka odd 8i ie 9gs sa
bsasi{qmoo
esi nootgsbh 3d oft (£45)
js e1s9y 2f to 96 sits sbiid odd bae atasy
,
;
oo.
(iv)
The
parties
are
prohibited
and
(v)
The
of
(vi)
between
Where
two
conditions
capacity necessary should
to
conditions
be
not
has
and
satisfied:
permits
of
each
between
of her
been
each
the
the
two;
age
guardian
obtained
to
and
contract
woman
may
they must
secondly,
and
become
Canada
a valid
they in
husband
Both
party
parties
must must
be
over
the
Parties
must
not
be related
degrees
of
a
must
observe
the
order
that
the
married. age
of
16
within
the
consanguinity
and
atfinity:
In England
in
the
case
descendants
of
King
requirement
of
the
1772,
must
of
certain
George Royal
be complied
II,
the
Marriage
with.
wife,
possess
marriage,
be already
and
both
satisfied:
prohibited
(d)
in
for
years; (c)
a
other,
governing
completed
first,
In England
(a) Neither (b)
man
a marriage,
a capacity
must
usage
the consent
than
formalities.
have
custom
two;
or
if any,
them
Sapindas
has
the
of
marriage.
be
contract
of
a marriage
the bride
in order must
custom
18 years
the
the
the degrees
unless
each
not
permits
marriage,
In Canada,
are
the
them
of
governing
parties
unless
within
relationship
usage
marriage
not
Act,
a person
following
| sabe i?
-raigo dans io eabatge? Jon ois eB rid
coseus off veg ogeas 10 dope gatiie tows afd? neswied sgsitrem s etter gg oi sasntamn> 20n etait Bf nt metbysug xe lo Jasen0n sda¢
ont) sao
— to2 bontsido mosd esd . yon it
iat
sitw bas basdevd omoosd yem mamow bas nem aBd3 said ak ,ateaet
« egsneoq died jeum yadt ,dextt oft svissdo noaxsq
tbettetsae od Jeum enotstbaos ows
teum yoda, vibnosse bas ,sgebtrem 6 32633009 od gatosqso
8 tela
rsb10
ry
bas basiged nk° hatbaaisatie’ csaensent
ot sbhsns)
i
golwolfot sf? .sgeitism biisv s josr3mo9 od ysksnqno s eved bluode
‘bettetiasa od Jeum anokitbaoo © .bstrssm
ai te 928
vbsorlts
sd
sd Jaum yoasgq satis ish (s)
-———
‘
a
bstsist
bas yviimtugneancs
=
:
y
9d Jon saum eotissT (so)
-
to as9tgeb bodhdaaiong
;
»
sd teum aabizeq Htod (d)
x5vo
8
sd3 sitdiiw
|
’
i
:
_
: '
7
84.
This
summary
marriage,
of the
although it is
is deceptively complexities
the
nine
of
these
provinces under power
between
and
the
certain
areas
and
to
enact
the
Act
In
state
Section
authority.
Provincial
matters
legislatures. obliged
to
in this
92 of
all
laws
India
it
92 carves
of
law
general
have
of
the in
heritage
by the Canadian North
America
this
the
is divided
exceptions
authority
The
powers
lies with
British
over
the Dominion
from
to
is
central
power
law-making
Act.
matters
the
enact
over-all
laws
(1)
the
solemnization
(2)
the
administration
and
strictly
courts
mental
do
marriage
in the
of justice, in the
capacity,
speaking
Provincial
be drafted
up
of marriage
in the
including
province.
consanguinity
not
come
laws
province:
within
dealing
forms
of
provisions
Ch.
3,
see,
and
the
with
affinity
ambit
these
affecting
of
1667,
30-31
Vict.
Sly
Se.
26
are
provincial
matters
are
solemnization.
th B.N,AseAct
Canada,
in Canada
legislatures.
and piveree specific
law
colonial
between
provincial
legislatures
cause
matrimonial
In Canada
out
The
British
is divided
that
"Marriage
the
concerning
and
common
area
created
of the valid
and
the historical
problems
91 and
England
situation.
exist
the
the formation
alia
physical
which
both
government.
setting Age,
for
is partly
provides
including
inter
which
Parliament
1867
for
Canadian
partly
section
Parliament.
concerning
the
provinces
Dominion
America
accurate
for
in parliament.
government
requirements
confusion
common-law
In England,
North
simple
and
constitution
vested
legal
(mperial).
btfev ef Yomokiemz01 oi 102 @ ~sbsnn2 wal nommo2 has boaiged Asod 20%
of 20 saves edt gahapabtay eiteteberpteep
. jo
ros csrcr
amoidoxq sd3 yftaeq bus esomtvorq sesd3 30
—2)
: :
.3DA sokxemA citx0% detit1% edt to Se bas. ER aot3osa teabsu aolsu3tsenoo et
exstism
Istaomttise
antorsan0>
ewsl
ifs dasa 03 t9woq
, basignd
ol
_
fetta. sda soowied beblvib at 2% sthalal .dnomptizaq ot betsav pobivib 2k 1swog etd? sbsso) ol detsiazé
oft 4svo
exswoq
noinimod (Is-1svo
.aexuaeistgsl
oda awsi
Istontvoxq
anitsmwel
sit dtiw estl mott
ot
bos Joemetizs{ sotmimod sd? asswisd
[stsa9g sad3 agbivorg TaeL toA sotiemA di10K
i abyouhe
enottqeszs
josne
.togmmasveg ogada of3 bas jnsmnrsvog
bre sgetrreM" gatbulont esos egg ee
slitesae
ytizodjus
svat
tuo aeytas
SC aotjoee
eermdelatgel
- Inometiss4
Istonivert
.yibrodsus (wi
| ails
isontvetq
add ot sgsttysa
sojnt
5 to sotitasiomefor sda (Lf)
|
458
actaxeoqoo 5
AS6
cats
gnibulont
,soitavt
.Sonivoetg
siz
e1s yJinttis bas yiinkugnasanop fstontvotq
to Jidms od3 nisitiw saoo
91s axsiiem geeds
smolicsinmaloe
io cotiatzeboimbs at
staves
sly (S$)
qu garkssee
.yJtosqes- Isomem bas Lesteviq
.9pA
d
jon ob gnidseqe yldotize doftdw e1ssism
ditw anilesb awal sgetiaste fetantvo1d
-estwssletgel
yntiosite enotetvetg to amzo) edd mt bettsxb sd 03 begtido
©
ohoks
Since
the
provinces
compliance
it void
[B]
of
such
not
legislate
provisions
or voidable)
the
by
law
regarding
invalidating
of England
the the
prevails
effect
of
marriage
as
non-
(rendering
regards
such
matters.
MONOGAMY (i) Hindu From
as
may
an
Law
Vedic
existed,
a man
more
than
wife
in the
was
alone
man
has
a wife,
and
who
bears
to
allowed texts
though
exception,
allowed
seems
times,
the
who
second
wife.
by side.
wife.
he shall
The
But
fullest
been
the wife
sane,”
and
able
when
after
the death
of his
former
special
grounds
It was
she
could
be
when
she
poneented
provision
only
when
superseded A
On
for
the
her.
which a wife
and
a second
was
suppression
the
of
passages
that
text
Another
set
of
was the
for
of Manu only
in taking
diseased,
provide
duties
was
a husband
a wife,
if a
marriage
“tea,”
marriage
wedded
religious
One
a
or vicious
valid;
as
husband
also had
a plurality
5
Vedic
Index,
I, 478.
6
Apastamba's
Codes,
11,
S.
11,
12=13.
7
"Having
thus
kindled
the sacred
fires
and performed
to his wife, who died before him, he may light the nuptial fire." Manu; V, 168.
8 TOTO
el
a ye ans
Le
moe.
marry
funeral
again
has,
to marriage
first
says
waa
barren,
a second
Other
who was
a second
justify
polygamy
relating
to perform
a time
there
rule,
Apastamba,
was
that
the
rules
take
that
to make
one
has
not
to a man down
side
is willing
sons,
indicate
lays
monogamy
and
rites
again
of
eo
ae a
i ae)
ci gnivebrst) sgsitrem oft
gotteblisvnt
a
ae
| ‘
-arsi36m dova abusgst ec eftsvarg basign® to % ee
(Buda
Ve
&
mpg
unte te —
wedubati (2) :
i
"
A
¢
:
26d yapgylog ,slux of3 nved esd ymsgomom davods ,eemhs gtbeV morte io)
-
9asiiism o3 gaiszsis1. eslux edT
:
.sbhe yd sbte ,bejeixs ,gotiqeox®a8 eB
bebbew jJaxti esw ow oliw ofs tuk
.stiw oo asd? stom aam s bewolles
& tt iedd eyse ,admeteagA
tasilvt ofa ot oitw ed3 gnole esw
estiub
auvolstisy
91
uneM to Jdxat and
mioitoq
© ance of side
o>ative Heiensa. 'x 94163 Jom Ilede of janoe exsed odw bas
vino esaw ageisism brrosse & now io 352 tsftonA s gtbls?
etlw
as
~bilsv
bed brisdaud io ytiisaiq
emia
doltdw. abnuoxvg fetosqe awob
.cotisd esw stiw se nsdw vino easw 31
eaw ogsixtsem
sid
8 aaw bedi jani3 stsotbnt
booose
5 Bae bebsareque
.stiw s Jo nokeesxqque
s 101
of emsee
ytamrot eli io rtesb oft yotte mem 6 03 bawolls
ot biisdepd s Yiksaut
auotatv to ,beesseth ovls
bos gatiifeet hil ~Stiw s esd oem
sbivotq
esgse¢esq
19430
sA¥ AO
evel atxeaa
.sitw baoses
sd bluos
sde tsd3
® beanseno2 sde asiiw
.2ed 202 motatvorq
,
—s
>=
;
sdam 02
4
:
z
-8%0 .T .xobel sthev®
bn, sfaiee
-E1-SE ,f1 .2 ,12 .egbo9 e'admaszesqA 1S
esata leronui
bowsolseq
eee She ine
a
= a6 beptiieuce
bas ee1bi bexose edd
a
ee
ee
-80f .V inns“
.
.
oe ods ost aw
fick
j
86.
of wives,
even
of different
A peculiar the
first
duty, had
marriage,
and
not
10
over
‘
Jewish
being
the
that
courts
of British
number
of
or
; 8 ; cae justification.
any
second
wives,
marriage
;
India
provisions
for
Separate
Residence
entitled
to
her.
and
separate
been
marry
and
The
first
married
wife
son
over
like
gradually
first
d in
:
in the
;
the
Hindu
Married
Act,
1946,
the
maintenance
if
the
consent,
cases
any
without
'
;
Women's
first
the
to
as
some and
were
handmaids
the
wives'
his
wife
half
‘ wives
restriction
prevented
the
the
settled
without
again
however,
Maintenance
of
subsequent
is without
of
a sense
born
the
to
from
concubines
it became
attributed
contracted
first
of
class
After
residence
was
pte
consent
alee
have
originally
Custom, the
her
a Hindu
could
without
¥
making
and
restrictions.
gratification.
that
Thus
any
to
which
and
a superior
patriarchs.
his
that
others
without seems
personal
probable
is
It
however,
for
as merely
considered
the
as
merely
precedence
brothers.
of
sanctity,
classes,
wife
Right
to
became
husband
married
again.
Marriages
apriicar
contracted
Ventretepai
between
Hindus
introduced
by the
are
now
Hindu
made
monogamous
Marriage
Act,
by
1955,
is
9 Mant pelil
ges
VELLE
204)
six
Sh—-a7.
10 See
Manu
III
12-14.
Li
tiapita
vs
lhapita
(1894)
17 Mad.
Lid.
235,
239.
12
See
Palaniappa
Chettiar
v.
Alagan
Chetti
(1921)
48
I.A.
242.
is thempeetakh
Marniage
Act
(LII
of
1872),
S.
15 and
16.
14
The Hindu Marriage living at the time
Act 1955 Section 5(1); of the marriage."
"Neither
party
has
a spouse
.nottsoftivera [anoszeq tot -
atiw boivrem yertt ef?
mtod
Ried of3 revo moa
text?
t9d bas exedte edz ‘evo
exew eoviw Insupsadue odd yilentsihto tsda sidsdoxq at 41 io eeelo rolteque @ textd’ aB ewhcats
ebtembned siz sili soctdvonon
si
| whe atsegs yrram bLuos bas .aoviw ald 20 san.
guonsiv
eld
'ssviw
ot triyifi atasmoW
ompasd
basdaud
boittem
wbokH
betxaeM
otiw text? ofa
Sif3 to Jmeenos ot
sarki
bas sliw
,mosayo
,1ovewod
qne @9289 omoe ot bsinayetq jucdtiw
vatorsbsing ‘ited ot 40
1) eed?
Cue et ubatH s Jedd ebbal debsix8 ‘to a
guodtiw
of 28 noktobajasy
,insenos
smposd
yilsubsig
siit mt belsaee
oft
16394
qr
2t opnsmotmiam
fede
sokseohtiseut oo 10
suodstiw sgetriem baozee
:
rs.
£
ae
ean
ssereqee
bas ssaebiast
03 beiztjne Uy
wv
.39A sgetareM
asi ,c@@f
ove
obnth
aubdts nsswied bajositnoo; asgeiiisM ' sida yd besuborsaFk
:
_
)
see
per?
‘eu
ef osussie
AL comegocoM
‘tad
@
7
tie
e@
7 ~e
F
. 78-28 Zr 7d0S$ itiv SL il b
-A£-Sf ITI cap
CES
,2€S
,.tid
“i bema
SAS .A.T 88 (L8@I) Lazal naueTA va | i
Of brs 2L .2- on foigiaii el32
- >
f
-otegs Le
sbam wou
Lie
bie sonablesi sistsqse
*y
yd avomsgonom
|
gatatam
a -ted vot anoleivozg
cohel , JoA sonsmetateM
srs
06
a
= —_
Or
ao ”
t
7% essentially
the
the
exclusion
both
parties
of
or
valid
marriage.
Hindu
and
cannot
be
said
declaring
it
to
This been
challenged
on
Vet
ytate
ne
medical
the
as
obligations
Act,
it
would could
of
is void
religion
the Act
the
a
and
the
marriage
is
laid
bigamous
a decree
a
rites
conditions
to
or
into
living
recourse
to
solemnized
divorced
later
The
until
Hindu
before
was
The
had
in
son
of
down
marriage
the
court
is
passed
in Ram
and
argued
the
family.
1955,
occasion.
other
The
without
a son
religious
the
it violated
therefore,
constitutional
Article
We
Gio tne
15) William
Hudson
v.
Webster,
A.I.R.
[1937]
Madras
537.
16 [1961], A.I.R., All bP 9561hdPunj te38h2
-
334;
see
also
17 which
guarantees
freedom
of
religion.
Bhagwanti
v.
on
The
He wanted,
challenged
Seth
found
a son.
that
has
Prasad
it was
bearing
that
that
Act,
one
court
and
appellant
ground
than
no
It was
salvation
Marriage
the
incapable
fulfilled
the
is no
be
to enter
of the
and
appellant
get
on
or
a spouse
aside,
on more
came
not
wife.
had
can
woman
the marriage
initio.
there
in the
a daughter.
be
ab
unless
had
not
set
of
one
oda
wife
validity
been
exists
and
his
single
competent
parties
because
that
a second
the
with
marriage
either
in contravention
The
to marry
be
unconstitutional
of
a valid
man
of performance
already
it
of one
they are
of Monogamy
however,
appellant
of
u.p.*?
grounds
appellant,
other
null
grounds of
time
that
be
only
the
simply
condition
attack
then
Being
Marriage
is non-existent it
must
not
at all.
life
marriage
or
had
for
Before
and
one
union
others.
If at
marriage
no marriage in the
such
a widower
ceremonies
earlier
all
to
widow
and
voluntary
Sadhu
Ram
A.I.R.
& 10 baso10ovib 10 algnte sedits od Jeum ogsiaien
om” by & O$ni 493n9 o2 Jn939qmoo ots yodd ylno cied3 bate 1swobtw aetia1 ogsiztxsm oft to sonsmipiieq to omit 13 38 Hu
posses: 77
odd bas giitvil sevoga s bad estizeq di to sedio go 9n0. esinomazs2 bas . ef ogsixzem 193sl of3 .25ie8 tsa yoad voanets ee phe egatrism r9tlrss awob bist enoliibaos sd3 to notjnevstinoo at gated
ogsizxam auomagtd off
.olitet ds brov ek at ,doA ogektieM gbokh eit at
dxv0o $dd oj sayuoos7t baeeaq at ssi1o9b
.«[fs Je egstiiem on
on st sxstt
s Lisnu
stusoed yigaike bas Inetatxe-non at
bos 2esinu stetas JE tadt bise ad yonns2 3k
“" biov hab Liun sé od 32 gutsslosb wsdl .@20f
siT
.30A ogstvisM
.aoheeos0
dis2 bsestl
ubntH sd3 ab yusgonsoM to mokitibaos ald? ©
sno oeada srom no Iscoksusigensony es begaeliarin seed
mad mi tivos
sdi
sroted
omas
aokgties
to abaworg
so Aos33e
. m0 bnwol esw eit foe
: af ti bos noe om bed insiisqqe eff ~ .S.U 30 930328 sdtiw aa .coe » gniteed to sldsqsont eaw sikw ek Jada ebavorg fsokbem
& iuodiiw
tsa
avotgtis+ ~stotetsds
,bsinsw
Isnottuatsenoo
34
bougie
tsdjo
asw
tsa
JT
.xotiigusb 5 Bed ,sevewod
Insel leqqs
Boe aotssvisa 198 tom bivow scaL logge ads
oH
.viimsi
oft ot belitiinu?
si4
bsgnelfedo
toe
to Woe afotatA betslokv Jf asd
Laqas oft
sd tem biuveda enodsagbigfo .sttw baoose anes
baworg of3 no 329A of3 yabbiisv to
-X€2 asabsmM [VECL] -A.TLA isa per
ATA
_utlbe meh 2 -v Einewaads oaks 998 :SEC-UA
oS
88. constitution.
The
out
Hindu
if
that he
under
has
no
"adopted
son
son'
The
ground
and
Muslims)
fundamental personal.
The
and
the
all
purposes
that
the
court
right
on
not
class
that
be
a ground
objection
contended
that
restricted
to
one
with and
the
result
traffic
of
the
and
or
forbid
and
the
son.
ground
of
between
confers
may
being
preference
wife
of noralityse
constitution
individual
not
on
born
discriminates
On Hindus
a
be called
equal,
race
disability.
and
Similarly
classification
wife
in
only
satisfy
that
in human
such
to
the
principle
the Act gives a fillip
is more
females
and
Act
qualifications
related
that
married
the the
adopted
a natural
attacked
pointed
a second
be
principlies
an
does
reveals
of
get
as
and
on
2
number
to
could
the
that
other
legislation
see,
report
(i.e.,
as
good
further
it violates
a citizen
contention to marry
A son
as
was
observed
the
obligatory
wife.
of monogamy
and
second
it was
census
for
of discrimination
will
reasonable
is not
first
It means
prohibiting
it
rejected
the
provision
the
Law
court
with
was
discrimination
religion
learned
the
population
than
the their
males.
excess
beings,
against
of
number
some
of
of
bound
which
the
the
to
in
could
lawful
lead
to
ethics
The
places,
if a man
females
needs
was
and
to prostitution.
Accordingly
biological
a situation
of morality
is not
hope
wedlock immorality
constitution
has
set
its
18 Haisnam
Baruntitoni
Singh v.
I.N.H.
Bhani
Devi,
[1959]
A.I.R.
ihe)
State of Bombay v. insist on monogamy
entitled
Narasu Appamati, A.I.R. [1952] Bom. 84; "To is a social reform and thus the state is
to legislate."
Mad.
59.
ry.
.
io
re
' besnioq ‘bre nolsagiaas
Mel. xo
"sm | adic |
oi bedse
.
ak
3 eh oli baoose 8 yTIBM 03 comangel rt
ert? siftdatsapna
oda bie heaqobs.od blues non As
am2 ,fto2 nxod Istuten & 26 boog 28 29% sai
dia
avbotH neswisd
+2A edd
so3snimtisetb
e 2tSiné> aotsustianos
‘doe
|
nea
,.9ek) ors
sia tsd3 ee
:
atueo sf3 (emtiauM bos
befiso sd yam bos Isubiyibnl ss as nesttto sone 3dgts fasnsmebaui has s5sx
guted
enotisstitiaup 16
.yitiidserb
yisalimi?
no
,isups
cottsoitieasis
io bruetg
sonst9is79
te
ea
tanijo Jed3 ensea 31 -, Isnoetsq s ad Jor Iitw aotgtisz
jan aaa ee
aasls gnisidtdotq
abeuoss sidanoesst eotdis
edt
ban
viilsrom
to slqtont1q
.nobtutiseo1g ,asdelq
sda
betsist
notzostdo
broose
454A sia JéAT bobAstaes
to cobisivgog adi nt Jedd
sit”
35 bas esw
eieevet dt0qe1 abens>
.eolem aed? stom ef esfams? Io todaom'sd3
et usm s 2t yiantbroooA
sqotl gom bivon eslsms3
03
e govtg
o2 gilli?
to smoe
sit
to todmun aesoxe sat ylae Sidw sm0"03 besobriest
se02 doofbew Iviwel ot ebssr Isotgolotd tte? yiettee bas betri39g eiifsxzommt
oF bssi
oJ bnuod
ea) Jee ear nobsustianso od’ dotdw eer
02
6.dove teds sluess sit datw
2sw alas,
.baM -A.1.A [@@@i] tvs inend3 -BMsT a s b)
.v
caaarhimaaiilloYtien bicias
£
«
89. face.
The
is
always
not
become
court
could
not
necessary
accept
that
this
a woman
view.
who
It was
cannot
observed
get
married
that
it
must
a prostitute.
DRaereoucte
statedas
"Morality
is not
always
connected
with
physique and one thing evolution through the ages had done to mankind is to bring under greater control the physical aspect of matters and to subordinate it to the mind. If it were not so we could not find unchaste married women and chaste widows or unmarried. It cannot therefore be asserted that marriage is the panacea
for Thus
to
the
idea
a person
and
with
the
Hindu
theory
of
necessary
it
of
of
having
change
and
moral
Act
greatest
good
to
Act
may
this
wives
is
in nature
an
and
laws.
of
greatest
be
the
same
Society
instance
the
nor
at
culture.
values
Marriage
that
evils."
several
education
discriminatory and
all moral
The
changes
number. to
it violate
is
It
is,
law
repugnant
time
of
to
time
monogamy
based
on
therefore,
everyone.
the
now
from
provision
a utilitarian
advantageous
does
time
Thus
principles
of
it
in
the not
is
not
ethics
morality. (ii)
The Lord
Canadian
classic
Penzance
in
Law
definition Hyde
v.
of marriage
Hyde:
"T conceive
that
2
in English
law
is
propounded
-
marriage,
as
understood
20 B.S. Sinha: "The Hindu Marriage Act 1955: Législation" , [1968] S.C. 3. Vols 8 at 31.
ok 114866)
Deke
LP
.& Di.
130,
133:
an
Experiment
in
Social
by
it omit bevieado eaw aI .wolwebd? 34
dguonlt moxtufove ‘gots sao bes « gntxd of et brivinsm 02 Snob befes josqes
offs Towtdeo
Isofevdq
—
ee
dziw besoenaeo sie
aud nay
rea@en
a
t ae reba
ald ot 2t stantbrodve 03 bas! — 18 jon biucs
sw o2 Jom sisw it
.™
371 «4.botm
stesis bos osmow boFarsawwibnt? toleysd3 Jonuso tI bot xxsmmns to ewobliw ssvars¢ oft at sgsitsem Gedy betasees 9d “alive
= OO : yesan
Lewon Iis x02 gat
Inarmguqe+
woo
ot emts
smii
nt ymsgonom
omse
2i sma
mozt
eognsdo
io notatvosq
gnived to asbr
eudT
odd
8 o3
to fosisq
bas notissubs
«siuvilvo
yiotoo2 siT
Iarsvee
te esviw
sit
;
-.eawel bas aoulsv Letom sensdo
rus
—
3i ditw bas a
ad?
no
jon
bsesd
wel
,stoistedd
omeissititau
,2t
iI
s to sonszank
.yeadmua
jesissitg
os at sa egstaxeM
ubntH ods
sdz of boos tastss1g
aR) yrosd2
sd yen “SoA aidjd
yrseeasoon
ae
Jon
2i
ti auiT
astdts
.shoyisvs
Yo eelatonat3q
of
suyosgsinsvbs
sft stsfotv
Jt as0b
tedi
|
10m sze3eRq at qrostsaimtroeth *
eS
esi laz0m bas 7's
wel metbsosd (tt) vd babawogozq
et ws!
detignd
ot ogstizsaa
fs
boojersbau
to noksiokisb.stessio
adiT
:abyH .v sbyat sonssasd biol
2s .9gsiziem sada syteono>
I”
% i
eo
=
scat is
62 ORL .a8ar Hd Enea a)
st
| | |
) OF in Christendom, may. ..0.sss0. be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others." It means
that
neither
union
marriage
party
subsists.
cannot
: is
that
If
contract
annulled
or
civilization
may
by English
contract
a person
another
and
has
another
has
until
: 22 dissolved.
the
recognized
as
long
contracted
first
: is
be monogamous
marriage
already
Canada
always
law must
spouse
part
one
dies
of
as
the
original
marriage,
or
the
he
first
ae tradition
the
and
marriage
of western
marriage
as monogamous
with
question
and
for
ee
The
Dominion
Parliament
goles
Sections
offence
in Canada.
The
marriage
ceremony
Criminal
person same
is
day
going
out
criminal is
also
by a person
of
Canada
offence an
offence
validly
to
under
offence.
is
with
is
any
Section
or
that
bigamy
and
person
when
243 makes
two
citizen
prohibited 241.
of
is
by a person
by marrying
these
240
the
committed
a Canadian
of
Section
provide
another
married
who
do
dealt
240-245
in Canada
already or
has
he
undergoing or
the
But
this
does
not
"Family
apply
Law''
if
the
first
marriage
(Butterworth)
(1966
on
in Canada
things.
Bigamy
also
was
- 3rd
a feigned
an
offence.
void:
ed.)
see
at
Committee of the Senate (1), final report 1967,
24 1953-54
Stats.
Can.
Ch.
51,
as
amended
up
to
the
resident
32.
23 "Proceedings of the special Joint House of Commons on Divorce", No. Ottawa,
a
other
oe
Bromley,
in the
a criminal
persons
Procuring
polygamy
bigamy
1970.
and
is a marriage
Le
| |
-
oc
i
ie ie2) ;
, siilot Gee ene
me
*
avis an as ne
i
au
'
papa sudsee:
as al aca asdions jes
fentaiazo atia es gnol
:
"7
of ,sgseitiem ono bes5stim05 yboouta asd. nogsaq © 31. ederadee otmy Jertt
egariism
sf3
2o moisgibs13 odd to J1sq ek sbeped
qisteaw
bis avomsgonom
to?
odd, tiny setoaw 32812009 donna.
to astb savoqa texri
‘SS-bavfoasth yo beliunns et
usd bos notissiitvia
e& saKirtzsm ae
sit of3 mi yasgid fenimits
to mokjzasup 93 « at ymegid
s gntogtabav +offto
ot
to sf nadw moersa
ows
ok
tasbtesx
6B at qmagid
-aagnida
agsiavem
tedt abivoxq
moarsq a yd bettimmoo
aft oo enoatsg sbsasd
ditw iisesb esi jnometixe? aokatmod sdT
bongist?
anotsse®
ef somstio Saf
todjons
#8 ued Isatmt79
.sbens) nt sonstto
ditw sbened ak ynome71s2 sgstrzem
gaiyizem yd yo bsttism yibtisv ybsotls al 102799 oostito
astbecs)
beatdinorag
«© gnftiawoe1Td
.1d
.sonetto 18 offs yasgyiog
ose
288-088
6 2k orw ok 79q & yd to ysb omse
agate! yar of o3 sbsos) bas OdS
nofjes2
aodem EMS noltog@
:btov esw sasttism Jexl? ofa. 25
»SE 3p (.bea brf - dT)
rebnv
ly
to tuo gntog
sonstio
Isaimt1
.eonstioc as) osls at
ton esob waria’
“wed
' ,volmox8
es
bas state? off to s933immod aatol Istosqe ald to sneltasaiontt ‘ra oe ae eTOCL gaoqgex fentd .(1) -of ee q .ewa130.
Pv)
OTOL 03 ai bobuome as fe hs
it-
-
91. In
the
provincial
requirement parties
by a provision
must
marriage;
state
missing
union
with
for
a person
with
another
dead or
or
she
is
not
those
and
the
spouse
did
not
know
a person
other
aware seven
The period
fide
who
spouse
at
any
or
been the
free
enter
absent to
was
that
the
through
alive
for
in Canada
spouse
is
if
he
or
her
seven
at
any
240
ceremony
she
spouse and
is he
7 years.
years,
provided
alive
or
7 years
that
has
a marriage
by Section
for
during
spouse
a marriage
his
missing
or missing
remarry
provides
that
the
whose
into
is married,
ground
to
that
impediment.
validly
she
this
provinces
a person
Code
enforce
impediment
be a legal
continuously
spouse
of most
legal
by going
reasonable
is
time
he
to
whether
Criminal
bigamy
though
has
may
is made
Acts
any
arisen
The
on
that
of
would
years
commit
attempt
Marriage
marriage
of
even
an
know
sometimes
not
person
the
not
person.
if
the
do
a number
does
bona
Thus, sets
has
another
that
in
existing
question
been
believes
they
a prior
The
legislation
in effect,
that
the
latter
time
during
years.
news provincial
during
which
statutes
23
a spouse
is
have free
also to
attempted remarry
to
after
: provide
for
obtaining
, a time
a
oa) See Marriage Acts Alberta: Sec. 20:
alter
Court
decree
*/*"yéars*ot"absence.
(RiS.A.,
for
presumption
1971,
Chap.
of death
British Columbia: Section 51: See also Survivorship of Death Act. Manitoba: fh. o.ie oho 54e Che 54.8 Section 925. Newabrunswicks R.S N.b. 1952, Chapter 1395 nil.
NewloundLland:
R.S.N.
1952,
Chap.
160.
of
spouse
226): and
Presumption
nil.
Novasecotia se ReowNsos UO/e) Chapters 25/7 nid. Oneabto.—heo.0. 960, Chap. 228, Section 11. BPeince Edward sleland: Ryo.P ved. L969, Chapter 27, Section saskatchewan: (¢R.ous.. 1965, (Chapter 338, Section 29.
21.
-
|
»,
;
te
aidsso10% oF ns bem et Iqmea78 fe
moby: ego kat a:
i
Jedd seoatverq taom to shh agertel
eds 03 dunntbaqnt Isgef yas to word Pale Ih) Se
| a ladouibaeidt Tego » od Stuow sgattsaa gatiatns sol iagetezam =)
an
7
aad oevoqe saolw soereq s 19fisdw moetzs esmtsomoe eer notsesup saT
fx
8 ‘to8 gnteeim ased
egeitzsm « ojot ted09 yibbiev yam aitssy to aah
a
xafjons diiw notmu
.coetsq
sd?
O8$ mokstoo2? vd pnevees gboD IsnimtxD
To
ada to of tt ,betviem et ore xo sid daguods neve noeteq tans
tel so atd
ei seuoas
sf bas etsey
gnkawwh evils Ot
nevee
.etesy
309219
at
sea3e{
od2
384+
babtvezg
activb
smti
yas
gntaetm
sbaned
te svile
seuoqe
asw
to
nt yr1ame1 sid
toa bib ode ‘x0
taeda wond
sft
taseds
eat sevoge
aed
nssd esd sevoge of3 1k to beab
¢ 102 gateztm yievountinos
\ jada
-etsoy
B tes Ejuds sada dakw
snod esveltisd
ao bos Sbitt
sidasoass1
banorg
ee
ton eso0b shiek
Jimm@os
gricg yd ymegid
8 dguotds
sgnizxem
yaome19>
he
at onlw HOBTAY s ,eudT
03 s91t
Tedso oda etea
savoga
ted ‘onit was Js s1sws
»:
jon ef
,@%s5y mevee seods ‘
omits
& tot sbivorzq
& gniniesdo
o3
besgqmeiis
19ite yyimme
oels
sdT
syvsd “* osutate Istonivoxq
02 osx
|
et sevoga & dotdw antiwb bolieq
cs
sevoqe
%o d3seb to solsaqmvesiq
e30A 9 eee c: 10] ssxoob 3tuod «=:08 a ét
~(@S8S .qsdd ,IN@L ..A.2.8) .sonseds= Io etesy bas qideroyivae conti ase :Ié@ moltjaa2 ;
moliqnuest1
& © nots nokt202
et ad ,
Per isporensiom
lia ,CEL sresqedD ,Scet its + Lka a
ith
yi
gest a a oo '
wee 10.28.68 is matdoo2? .1S sazqedd ‘ . : .
is
eS
norktose
2
az
|
tlt
+ be
© '
Se) or
2
bavot
|
: Ad —
a.
O25.
a
Certificate
[C]
or
CONSANGUINITY
(i)
Hindu
Most,
if
incestuous.
(i.e.
blood
matter
any
of In
gotra now
been
the
third
or
the
rule
who
is not
had
or
Gautama on
is
the
or
also
affinity
which
the
and
prohibition
probably it
not
to
But
appears
ieee
that
ae But that
of the
same
gotra
(Agnatic
who
share
Vasistha,
in
(ancient
side
and
six
a man
the
degrees
the
should
lineage) Ricebowl)
the
the
of
-is 05 -o
take
the
a
in
prohibited or
560s vedic
Index
Yajn,
0.525.559;
to
the
Grihya his
wife
ether”
eee
1, 475.
Xil,
«7;
only
to
Sutras,
of
prohibited
are
Satapatha
extended
for
his
the
which
is not
father's
Narada,
within
or who
wig tore 5 0s
is
policy
From
the
28 Vishny.)
marry
of kinship
prohibition
time
writers) on
marriages
2)
HiranyakeSaity
by
morality,
established.
by the
force
Brats
may
public
religion,
as
consanguinity
within
26
patap
marriages
relationship
a woman
against
firmly
into
mother's
or
fron
marriages
certain
come
and
(i.e.
a man
"contrary
or within
instance,
Cognate
arise
personality.
involved, as
may
certain
institutions."
lineage)
fLouwrth
from
within
ages,
were
prohibit
relationship
described
early
for
‘eitect.
states
individual's
fundamental
familiar
(Agnatic
that
have
Brahmana,
four
degrees
incest
(Agnatic
so
civilized
relationship)
the
that
AFFINITY
all,
to
its
‘to
prohibited
affecting
degrees
AND
not
The
relation
order
Law
The
marriage).
to
Court
one
a Sapinda According
degrees All
were
these
Go) &
®
SF
mt tekedue yam 34 10 “4
sft 26 S885 nt bas ved9e2 of dguomls
ewe
.tedjom of3 figuoims xed30 20 seed ak abrewqu be2nx2 ef ontl odT (6) med
Yo dose
asoltsevomeg edt
anitnvos
io sail efi at
betnuoo
od 03 sia evti
nommos
sd2
brs
bsanisoneo
°
anos isg
.2totzaons TO yidenoitsis:
esbulont
qidenolssiex
(2)
ebatqse
qd 25 {few a6 boold sntrstu so tad yd
gels 31
.ecottgobs yd osfis bas boold fiy3
amitsergeIIkbac odsmbsinet dyod, eebulonk
7
e@
Jeaatt eft as
30 ssiad3 xzedterdw Joaoes
totesons
Bee
estiszeq odd dtod
:moltaisasg
ef3 Yo svteulont
5oG
if
1
ale
cs
eT
|
-
Fe (1)
A lineal of
(2)
sapinda
Persons within
Under
the
first
ascendant
category
within
relationship,
having those
common
the
limits
and
lineal
ascendant
limits.
the male
sapindas
would
be:
Father
Father's Father's Father's Mother's Father's Father's Father's Father's
father
father's father's
father
father's
father
father
mother's mother's father's mother's
father
father's mother's mother's
father father father
Son
Son's Son's Son's
son son's son's
Daughter' and
the
female
son son's
son
sso
sapindas
would
be:
Mother
Mother's Father's Father's Father's Father's Father's Father's Daughter
mother mother
father's father"s mother's mother's mother's
Daughter's
Under
the
their
common
that
Son's Son's
son's son's
lineal
is within
ascendant
dau ghter
and
category,
the
within
the
ascendant.
(ii)
Canadian
Law
mother mother
mother mother
daughter son's daughter two
ascendant fifth
father's father's
daughter
Son's
second
mother
persons is within
degree
third
are
through
degree
sapindas
of each
the
limits
of
his
or
immediate
through
her
his
or
other
sapinda
her
if
relationship, male
immediate
female
Ny
u i
.
ine
tie
Ns ete
ee _
A
A
e ee s, Ea y F t e am an tabtab 9 waoda 0) *
os
a
es
~
\
mi ts oba
=
ie
Sra oay Cie
eee Sie he‘e
snabno2an ey
"
;
=f
emer!) aiw y um
P
&
7
.
line
ie
7a
comes jest? ads
m sed bluow asbalgne slaa
~~ » a
i
is
ot
We
A)
tedisi a ‘gorse
1396382, Sondses ‘3’z0fteT
e' r9li0M
todjsi
sodtet a softom
a.
ere
Dae
sete? e'ted3aat aie 3 elxadge% soe?
i
,y
¢
rep
a!asdist
a’ redis2 a'zedjom 8‘ 2sd307
zosdae1 2' tod3om on $63 se‘19287
e'tsdsom e' ted327%
sedjet e'tortvom
-
moe
:ed bivow eshniqse sisms? od3 bas zadtoM
-
asd3om 2’ r9A30M asdion eitos3e%
tedjaom e'redjet ea’ redisT sardjom e's9dtet a! zaie2 a apa assiton e' tsits?
e'tedzom e*rd3eT
‘xodsom e'2edtom a'tedisT
:
ted30m BYpeseae. 2* r9d3e%
aa082 n nb fou ge si sd a'mo e a'to asiigusb aap
7
|
i
936 enoe19q, owt , Y10geI89 baoxse eft wsboU it sorito dose to asbaigsa «qidesotsaios shatqee
> skal to ethmil old skiltiw el sasbnsces Inentl como
elem statbommt sor to abd dguosia sergab arenes
‘efsasi sistbenmt 1d 10 etd dguostis soxgeh eee we
a eo
:
7 fae
u
Pe
5 eo
—
*
| f
7
a
‘
uton
|
a
# é
s
‘
re hie : BS
er
ne r r Vie
i}. a
98.
The
one
of
English
the
adoption was
of
and
within
the
a slightly
set
the
before
of
out
doubt
Book
degree
year
made
century
wide
dissatisfaction
that
the
to marry
he was
allowed
degrees
of
schedule
The
by the
Dominion
marriage.
Wife's
his
schedule
in
acts
this
Marriage
to marry
of
fact
passed
area
Marriage
of
it was
only Act
sister
his
today
1949,
as
are
between the
law
set
as
1907
against
out
relating
has
enacted
its
sole
and
Divorce
Act
1995.°)
laid
ninety-ninth a°-marriage
the
in
Act
last stringent
controversy 1907
permitting
till
1921
that
en
ies
The
the
first
by the Marriage
Bishop
and
in
there
Marriage
bitter
not
the
those
the
passed
was
1635
of
brother's
amended
reproduces
end
it was
deceased
were
the
but
But
in the
but
after
was
and
Church
Up till’
By the
expressed
law
degrees.
in 1603
merely,
void.
canon
degrees
preventer”
voidable
wife's
Act
prohibited
adopted
being
the
Catholic
prohibited
Common
though
adopted
Roman
of
and
prohibited
Parliament
The
was
Sister
by statute
in
the
marriages
deceased
four
of was
affinity,
the Marriage
In Canada the
such
relationship
to
1960.
amended
to
Deceased
a man
Act
all
the
table
in 1563
the
prohibited
relating
with
that
that
rules
Reformation
break
Parker in
the
modified
little
by Archbishop
canon
of
results
eventually
down
law
Parker's
(Enabling)
table
as
1960. to
capacity
statute
to marriage,
relating
provides
that
to a marriage
35 Hill
vw.
Good
(1670),
Vaugh.
302,
328.
36 Deceased
Brother's
Widow's
Marriage
Act,
1921.
Sa RipwOetwsy Chapavl/6, of a brother.
ec.
"2 &S,
“ive. , daughter
of
a sister,
son
.nssxgeb bosidtioxg to obded :
e1ed3 aul
bial seor3s oxew asstgsb
bestidtdorq edd set 3
cecemwob-
dantn-yienia sii at £0aL at baiqobs bre eaat nit a
cgnisiem 5 2081 r6rs qu “*.s5yst nomimd! 96 Soot sii mt awa toe base monso sds
JoA egeitteM
,yisiom sidsbtov aoeaoxgeh bosididese edd atdtiw-
|
.biov ssitsiesilathaniilerinae tssy ted3 to
|
stit to be 9d3 ya
teal $nsynitie
oft
tenisgs
teitid
qersvorino» \ORE
gnistinzeq
tud
(S$@l Litas
aT
OF
anted enw nobdostehtacatb sbiIw yrusas5
09gatislor
testis yino esw Jk dguods ~Utinitis
nt bseesq
geda
bosaasiqxs
ton esw
cating a'yodtord
asw aA Sarto tt bos astate beeressh
ett
sf3 tad3
heessosd
isjai2 e@ ee
abies
2 ‘aatw beessodb ‘end yviItsm o3 msm 5 yvriam of edudese yd bewolls esw od
jeri? oft mt iyo tse stp yebos bedidtdexg qidenatsalos to ess7xgeb
(gnifidesd)
spsttisM ofa yt bobnoms es ,@h@L Yo SoA sgekuxel oid 03 elubedoe
as oidsi
e'19axeT
as pdaubeaaen 4982. ot siubsdse eaT
godekd Od@f
bos TOCL
naswoed
.0d@L 395A
beaesq etose aol sd3 yd bebnems
“4
-Saetyxam of vilssqeo o3 gmbisiss wel adj lo’ sete etid at pbaas) al 03 gntisior siutete
sgaitism B jedt ashivoxd
sfoe 23
bsiosms esd tnomst iret nofaimod sd3
.sgeitism
XE asset JoA soaoved bas sgsis1eM sdT b
igh
mean é
BSE , SOE .iguev A .
nt?
a
aa
sa bat)
ee”
ad LB
-{S@i ,39A sgaiatat a'wobtt e'xsd3oxi beassosd) 174
aoe
~ato
ot babrsge1
S 86 Bykb seeds
:
@F Lote
ae
42 to notislotv
ee
vie
,2SCL .t9A sakesaeeh ogakazaM bird)
es mwond vinamtoo
oft
i
of
odd amiss sasgnoze adi at bsomebaos
im
diiw
7
oe
JoA sastiisM
Istasqé aia Sit&D ned?
.
;
.
Th soe ods yd
*2oft Yoae IS sd 04 sism sit bae ems atad 08ofane’ a)
$A ted3 xobay ogsiz1am yas
=o? ad vem sgsinism
“Te >
| bLuoD pain §
Geiggd vet wr
s ted3 7 * eobivorq ceer i ETA
RSEES ioe
:
7;
106. solemnized
between
age
of
18 years
Act
adopts
the
test
of himself this
or
up
1929-4970
may
to Rs
provides
a female
marriage
is
believe
that
the
parties
were
above
similar
was
valid
and
the
years
a particular
age
at
the
time
anyone
who
procures
deees
that
with
he
Whosoever
similarly
was
a marriage
the of
is
age.
mere
in disregard
of
the
the
to
that
he
i.e.,
the it
at
Child
a child
had
both whether
penal
Child
Marriage
Restraint
Act
1929,
Section
provisions
of
18.
Ree te Or 1929s Ace 19Mor 1996s Act 40 of 1949° The Central Act is supplemented in Assam by Assam Act 27 of 1948, S-45, and there are statutes Statute.
which
copy
the
provisions
Sik Ep.
Vv.
fulabadi,
Aal.k.
[L940]
Bom.
Ss
Rau
-VecoLtal,
Avie.
[L999 | ALL
340.
363.
of
the
is
Restraint
50
numerous state British Indian
are
provisions,
49 The
to
marriage
Marriage
corresponding
reason
solemnized,
a child
the
Act,
a child
marriage
to be
15 days
by the Hindu
that
child
of
Restraints
directs
notwithstanding of
up
provided
marriage,
attendance
provision
for
as
a marriage
in contravention
or
proves
permitting
marriage, the
he
The
of marriage
Marriage
as
the
marriage.
of age marries
conducts
Promoting
otherwise, But
Child
punishable
a child
the
imprisonment
21 years
unless
not
the Act
The
performs,
the minimum
irrespective
simple
under
15 years)
And
under
of
completed
time
if a male
offences.
has
the
both.
or
bridegroom
at
or with
marriage
punishable
Binieneb lor:
2
that
guardian
not
gis
1000/-
above.
or
of
15
be punished
punishable
a parent
bride
if
to be solemnized
under
Act
Hindus
It pron
herself
Marriage
as
the
capacity.
or
a fine
two
completion
provision
(i.e.,
and
the
of
any
Central
the
oor
7
;
:
;
cia
add bevetqmo> asd mootgebiad od 71 aubntt oT
Logntrigm ods to omis od3 38 caine tc Oe
bastamsfos ed ot"Beater 10 Moeemhd 0
nt 390A ofd robs
Yo nokitevatines
i 3o seedot
32a
sgsitism 6 eatu2071q ofw snoyns Jad aapivorg
49=
bs
od:
sit Jn oge asiuats1eq 8 20 notte 2 909
26 sgsiitem to mid
wa
aysb @f of qu x0? trommoetiqm! siqmte d3iw batetaug od ys notalvorq eis? dahl 20 ~\O00L ef oF qu saki 6 10
tod
bitdo oft
egsiimsM
,JoA etmtertesi
bitdo s ashirem sge to etasy [S ssbeu sism
en sldedalnug
vbstH sf3 yd bobivetq
16 @doubco.
biido & e196%lb od goesss
et sd (amasy CL reba sismst 6 ,.8.t)
.emsotxeq
,bastamloe
ed of Jf gatztimieq
3nteijeei edi
Iacegq off
egatixeM
to anotatvorg
ef sgeitrem
fe .idedetaug ton
ithe BBW
to motetvorg sf3 to aulisoqsexit,
bitdd eda
sii
gittbnoqestto2
to bregevebb
,e8@!
at egsiatsm a bos “ eJoA
i
390A tnkstJesn ae
Oe
ee bitd) sTa ~~
odT
exp emsdt bas .cs-2 Ie13ns9
;0d0L #o f8 45A
,BLf
|
.aeanstio eldsdetoug asitmte
,sgstitsm@ sft BoA
gnibastedtiwion
-81 nofjos@ at s5A fer3m99
|
10 Jneisg £ 8s
,setwiedio 10 meibiaug
at sgottiem blinds 4 38 sorahrsats s19m jud ,enotetvotq
sidsdetnuq
.9g5 muminim sd3 svods stew setizeg
sediedw sactwusm biidg odd gatioros% e415
.evods toA sgsir1sM
isvee80iW
,»ogshyrem blido » tom exw egsizism of3 3ad3 evetiod
,.9.5
diod tadt
asbivotg Kon-eser
u ass
of eeolov yl¥allmte
aevorq
ber of sada
|
to iS 3A
s8ECL t0 Cl toA
é
92
7O8OL Zo OL J90A
magek, wi menad. at besaomaiqque sistle Bsuotsmun -
913 to aankelvorg eld yqoo dotriw estuisse
om
-93utei2 apthal detii1..
.£9€ .mod (ORL) HLTA amelie LOdE SIA [RCCL] YA tartsina ; S
7
@
1
aes.
-
WO AS
Hindu
Marriage The
Act
idea
Marriage
Act
submitted
of
be contracting aware
Act
the
Hindu
a marriage consequences
1929
has
been
of
1929
that
Hindu
measure,
Marriage
that
marriage,
Registration parents
to
concerned
in an
furnish authority.
pliance
with
parents
would
the
have
the
indirect
Indeed,
provisions
before
would
also
enable
the
non-compliance
with
the
any
would
been
Child
who
would
1954
Child
as
the number
this
the
registration Marriage
the
Sivanandy
v.
P.
Bhagavathyamma,
Restraint of
to
them
54 The
Hindu
Marriage
Act
1955,
Section
8.
Mad.
or
of
their
com-
Act,
the marriage
[1962]
practice
ensure
their
the Act.
A.I.R.
under
to
mie)
B.
Restraint
parties
would
prosecute
is
ignored.
parties of
It
provided
unceremoniously
age
the
reform.
of marriages
the
of
to
period.
Marriage
discouraged
be
Restraint
compared
legal
the
is
should
Marriage
and
Child
require
authorities of
those Act
further
have
arranging
provisions
it
during
the
including
the
twice
this
for
of
(Special
but
42 years
place
obligatory of
The
acts
clear
infinistesimal
obviously
details
that
Marriage
over
taken
has
two
is not
registration
way
would
the
for is
in
thought
implementation
think
and
act
Hecsed which
all
1955)
a marriage.
requirement
of marriages
limits
Special
book
the
namely,
Act
Act
the
such
under
effective
age
obviously
statute
is a precursory
Another
child
of
marriages an
Marriage
under
the
initiated
child
submitted
on
also.
different
legislature
the
number
the
and
two
of
prosecutions
Act
be valid
putting
1954
that
will
400.
for
for
the
the
children,
eo
¢
Gwe
‘Iebysq2) esos owt ai asimn! sgn4 oi
Wl stn
sat! RE ash
:
|
bivow onw seod3 tedt idguoMivyer
I sr
n
:
|
ad biuote A@@l oA ogetr1eM fefseq2 saea Jaber3ae8 egsityeM blidd sdcT o
todmua
sf3
bre exsey
.sgétixsm & iow
eda o7 bexysamoo es Iamtestetnaiial 8i 31
.boktoq
eid?
ir 4
$i i19vo 10ot A00d Pep
asd @ er 394
ei as
gntisb soslgq nots3
Fee re
=
7
shed?
avait a8) nupnbyiam blinds 20 sedi »
InlettasH
meer sae
egsitieM biti sds to noltetnemelgqmt: svitosiis ss iedt bessimdua vige
SE
[srel
tz9dtxzgi
ynos 10% Jnomextups1 Yrosiwos1q sat
eSOL 395A »
wabrv
bobityotq
esgsizism
io oot
oe
ols oo
@tal ton
,oTussom a se
to sotdonxa
offs bsgstyoserb wae bluow doksw
os
7 9
Yo jnsenom
-bovaet
{Iut
bativpst svad
biswbI eonts4 bas si19dIA
ef anbeisq atstie. to dneeno. of3
eottisq
s36
to etasy Bf r98Vv0
.ete9y Cf brs 8f Yo asgs off meswisd
sonectl = x0 bestamefor
ed blwofe 41
bnslel
‘ievaat
skint. dats twa
ei sgsitism 6 a10ted bextupey ef ehoereq
.yvism o3 yYitosqso
[iui oved asitzeq sge to axasy Cf rS5v0
yod blo sesy aI 5 bos I1xrg blo issy Sf = te SyskrrsmB tstid’ boson Hersiaa mi btov 2d jon bluow norissitodjiwe Lekotbut tuodatw bestamelor ~feittyT
.sduteie
& ,e¢nemetiups1
sit yd bevse vieaaroxs sesd4
gat bnstadsiwiton
eb yotbiiav e9t sonte skdavlod eed 10) sbivoag qieastqxe ef 3k we
ig/i}
a)
a .8f ,VI ,Af .992 ,d8S .qedD OVOL .AL2.H JOA oget1zeM
ME OF (Oo .502 ,SES get OBOE .O.aleue toksgntsaelt
ae
' MI BNE .o92 . 1S -TaHtd | od se> 71 \bms noksaseqeta
ubatH od? wSbm biisv et botw bavosau to”ides ogsixxem sid edd besbat at JI wal
brvoeny at ebiad sis if tado nottauste sao
=
irk baudarty ek moozgsbisd sda aadw aud iaBBAG et ogbirtem sri3 bate nt
esto at a} ogetrsam odd ate & ot yY3Isq
egetixsm
asob
o#
gi jobbr
,datitd mosx? TW
thelso
OY | adobouseds sasd
sviiosteb
otismusyi
¢3tnsent
86 sfdaqsout
[snottat
oA
cA
at torbi
sro
ak ow
ON soubaon
Io smis
.sgeiirtam
Joe SHT
bos zsisl
to mrot
s ,at
bas estiluosi
Js skdenul
of3
.otasqul
ro
yvitnensmtsg
6 to anki as ad biuorie abarow edi sntisb
tokbt
Jeom of3
af yootbl
esd baim satire nuieee 8 ot botiqqs mist 8 asd
yilsvev
witnsent
Isiase edi
batm
to easbnvyoanu
{sdtasygnop
to mio?
assrtedw
8 at yoorbI
to aasmqoisvsb te eonsads odd 03 aub big
ax
.vasmotiohd bro2x0 st
ct ies ox smo a
* “yaad , (98QL] Hitchini
ver as ee,
See
sd 03 a6 bakm at deb otal
io mot sneyvtxs
Isinom
omoe
Isat
xsbal
. 390A sauenat ubn iH —
a ,ceet
redjion
j
1 ee
—-
ae “A
fi
oe
Moree
oP
7
DRS. intelligence an
Hdiot
1p
the Mental "persons
from ie
the very
not
subiicient
Deficiency so
Act
defective
in mind
to guard
themselves
feeble
mind
with
idiot;
in
9 years
law
an
cannot
mentality
of
Whether
termed
is
an
evidence. who
asserts
(ii)“cCanadian regards
on
this
of
affecting the
mental
and
hold
a person
issa
mere
inbecives
‘idiots"' or
from
are
an
early
physical of
can
An
is
not,
ordinary
a man
age
of
be
=
In
as as
dangers."
a child
more.
defined
to
to
be
A man
of
however,
child
54 years
of
an
8 or
with
the
fact
to
haere or
lunatic
is
a question
of proving
either
of
allegation
be
lies
80
capacity, Since
the
capacity,
provinces.
to
Law
lunatics.
point,
an
nor
burden
it.
te
capacity
idiot
The
that
common
idiot,
a party
him
marriage
as
order
birth
something
termed
heavily
As
mental
means
In
(Scotland),
against
be
on
find
from
a child
determined on
the
idiot
be
to
1913
unable
and
childhood.
the
In most
the
of
the Dominion
provincial
law
law
of
,
Parliament
legislature
England
provinces
ataleit ee forbids
2
like
has
cannot
remains
the
,
legislated
legislate
applicable
:
ndeepes
not
the
Prince
on
matters
law
Edward
in Island,
78
Me.
Tatli
v.
Alfred
Robert)
Jones,
Awl...
[1933]
All
=
122.
79 iLigaual.
80
J-D.M. Derrett, ate 154%
“Introduction
to Modern
Hindu
haw,"
(Oxford)
(1963),
81 >
Gon.
ty Cha
10%
82 Marriage
Act
R.S.M.
1970
Marriage
Act
R.S.P.E.1.
Chap.
M-50
as
83 1969
Chap.
22.
amended
by Chap.
11,
Sec.
23.
8
ve e t e r a e e r i er 84. 02 ap¥9g 8Bod! 99xob20at Ve
at
I
SSgtrssde oxems at if 26ca a): as toni?sh ox ‘atotbi’ , (bawtaoeey
Tokied
od 03 a6 sge yfabe np mos? zo daakd mow? bs :
.
sooieb of oposite”
bieug/02 -eldsau
eavisemeds
Yo ans A “.axsynsh Iestecdq somnds Jantags
Isaasl
te ,2svewod ,tor et Bitta 5 io yitssqno kesdemied? ifaw bos bosessidas? a azo 8 to bitds yisnibyo
nA
.su0cMm gokdtsmos emtdm dorbt ns wal ot qiorbr
edi djakw exyasy 4c to cam 6 neo
Ton
Jorbt ss bemis3 od Jondad | szaegie
°\ sorbt as bots? ad bikds » Jooyshissaem 9d 03 Jost Jo mokdesup eB el sivecqul eet!
nottagelie
wedtis
antvera
1
Jotbr ne @t ysaasq @ tsd3eqdW
jo asbrid
sAT
.Sonsbiye
go bentmegab
5
08 5F watsres onw mtd co ylivesdd weyiTs
wel neibeas) e_3
£8 “ baslgni
abtdzo%
to wel
ods
,.ysiseqss
Insaom
som
esd
tasmailzasd
nointmol
sd3
somt@
edt
ebrags1
a
botsletys!
eA »
.aotsanvul
“tel
sonnma>n stvtsicigs!
nt wel ofdsotiqqs sd3 entamsy
Istonivorag
&
to sgsizzem wei
2ietiam mo steletgel
°
(EE)~ ;
or
sis bos einitog etnia
.
ole
basignd to wal edi .yttoaqss gnisosiis 4
Pra
€8basiel brewbl sonkst *°,sdosinsM siti’ esontvexq 320m nl .meontvoxg ofa ===
oh
Gate
am
SSE
LEA [P0UL) Wat .A sooo amo BLA, JLT aa bere
»brdI
'
3m) " 1197790
Ap
OEE
Md. L
ae ©
'
08
ACT ae
:
116. 84
Saskatchewan,
A person
etc.,
must
and
responsibility
the
marriage As
by
The
the
health
of
that
is
a medical
for
This
Act
capacity
that
neither
It
the
is
authority
submitted of
the
there
on
of
cannot
parties
to
be
to make
party
should
licence
is
such
provincial
no
statutory
be
at
the
be
At
the
time
to
provide
Marriage before
Act
n.o. oO. £905
Chartkow
v.
86 Sect iiom 21
Gl)».
Feinstein
kind but
of
of
since
validity
the
such
is
would
be
health requires
license
may
be
physical
syphilis
at
the
issued.
legislature
[1929]
a serious
of Alberta
from
and
is beyond its
ooo. 2 W.W.R.
the
validity
85 See
with
Lt
marriage.
some
marriage
suffering
legislation
Chap.
to
Tee
a marriage
Act
84 MarriaGCer
the
its
that
comply
from
into,
it a requirement be
nature
consent
common
of
entered
authority
not
taken
the
requirement
suffering
stipulate
do
we ; incapacity.
a voluntary
matters.
not
their
understand
give
attempted
example,
that
is
may
to
ct this
to
ceremony.
health
should
scope
attempts
marriage
marriage
have
syphilis
issued.
to
tuberculosis
both
for
order
a marriage
the
or
Thus,
when
as
provinces
one
the
reference
capacity
in
England
before
The
test
mental
a person
beyond
because
a statutory
health,
such
requirements.
date
of
legislatures
questionable.
invalid
time
law
requirement
legislation
: is
of marriage
disease
provincial
the
physical
a requirement
infectious
have
the
regards
provided
is
at
there
257.
scope is
of
the
questionable.
92 Jmano> yanaiulov 8 ovig 03 T9bs0 a gaan= capa seoniond> sgatrzem ofS 20 omtd odd 48) ogelt rear sit Witces Ae BA ebregex {nateytiq Snometivpsy yroiwisie of at stad Asfsed ove wi Gee" + bebivoxg vd wel comwos 3A .219d3em dtined mo basigad to wel ofl > gagek
auolisa
biuore
od ton
anixetive
6s mox?
& sats sama xtupes & at
soetsq
6*aa8
to boid
dove sonte
,odnt badetns
td
bstqmesis
oJ
sbivotq
amoe
a6 nova sessetb avoljoeital
te ateolustsdu3
to omit adj
.sgaitism sda
Istomtvo1g odT
saved esivisletgel
ad vem sagsttzem & Ss1Oisd InedSttupst Ha Isod
af yilbitey air ¥dixodjus sted2 to sqooe ods bnoysd ef nolisletgst ed biuow
sgaibyiam
dafesd
eotkupst
io toA sgsizieM
etrsdLA
sgeiittem stoted
festeyiq
ds eifidqya
mex?
to gqose
.sidsnoizeaup
,siqmsxs
sd
bivode
ati
dove
bas siisfeigel
tees
Isotbsm s
JOA ett
-boveet
ieAijiea jsdd yJiosqso
x2 189
auees ‘al sonsobl
einem iiupst
,autiT
10
sd oJ aklidqye to?
odd bnoyed 2t morteletgel
at yiibilav
7o sro seusosd biilsvat
jod
6 3: osdam of eigm9s9B
gnisstive
©
sd2
nsiet
to tnSmortupss
a
ei
ob 2stirsq
jon
-sidsnoltesup
saT
sasntvorq
ionnso
sisluqise
diitw yiqmos
sd3
ed yam sensail
613
s ted
sgsitzsem
edz neodw ateb
Jedd best kodes ak jr
Istoaiverq
ei2
Yo ysiirodius my
.8C£)
.qaud 2d0l
a ann
a8 .2.2,8 390A ogetrieM ©)
eT
:
ea é
7
28
2S HWW S [CSC] Histeniot .v woslasedd 992 ~
at
Inteomatoes
wal
dyguofd C8
id
+0. tn9en05
Isteneg ni beste
to Jnsenos
es ,2timbs
eriog1sq eds
oF sub
Isisos
to mron
ei estixaq
bositon
fatnombx3sh
wal
of sub sd vem doldw asttx1eq Isutoa
goinicant
JnsanoD
silt .svods
esgsixstem
esioanoo
4n9en02 rioue
offs sbylont
to sonses7q
160 estitiam1o?
;sidtensqatbmi
to yiibrfav
egaitiam
i
adeees
OD
11
to songedA
jnsenoo
taseath
dotdw
isbou
misdzs5
al esonstemorrs
Yo s3sie.
s 1zoi saemextupet
bifey
-ognittem
ro eesiqed
sgs.ittem
srobom ot ,2iseqgs
« , isvswoH
S43 nt bsaslqmeinoo
yvibeaduobsau
etostie
to asmemooTgs Bstiqmt
eit
of aststaq
18399
sid otnk
o1s
east3tiamtzo2
fsinomtsism netbal ,etonim
to ogais3am
estetaneg ot sldpil
A
MT
sxs
om x
.j9A sgstxxsM ubot sda 20 (s)S$1 motiose es2 _ .19A sgetrreM Istoeq2 sda to (£bt)
.8 moktoc® ,220L 325A ogektaeM wbetH’sdT . ae
pave of
giving
consent
is
The was
consent
one
supplied
usual
; a minor,
and
guardian
of
sufficient
This
to
or
the
contemplated
, a bride
who
had
under
the
: attained
not
minor
bride,
bridegroom
such
a marriage
give
Hindu
away of
a valid
the
to
eae ; in influencing
the
law which
on
marriage
some
of
of
the
parent
required
the
Law
consequently
the
irrevocable
empowered
the
behalf
of
their
spite
of
the
in
that
marriage
consent
of was
enumerated
the welfare
the
consent
an
90
Hindu
tie
or
and
between
guardians
the
who
were
in marriage.
considerations
parties
under
also
First,
safeguard
marriages
Law
marriage
disadvantages.
to
created
girl
the
the
requisite
traditional
puberty,
the
and
the
guardians.
The
provision
actual
or
therefore
F on bridegroom.
guardians
Indian
parents
and
adult
constitute
inherent
minority
an
and
to
their
by their
Traditional
enjoined
to
marriage
between
parties.
due
of are
are
their
wards
bona
extraneous
bound
to
to
the
created
an
of Dharamsastra",
Vol.
2 (Bombay)
two of
the
parents
of
the
interests
a prominent
Secondly,
laws
guardians
in most
play
personal
or
had
fides
wards,
. a2 guardians.
the
parents
: since
irrevocable
role such
tie
90 Kane,
Lai
History
(1941)
at
440.
ee It is ordained in the Sastras that a boy of 8 - 12 years should undertake the Vedic studies the duration of which would extend to a minimum period of 8 years. Therefore, the boy will be completing the age period of studies.
majority
by the
of 16 years even if he takes the minimum Under ancient Hindu law a person attained
completion
of
the
16th
year.
ie
The
emphasis
relevance likes and
on
''good
family
background"
to the actual accomplishments dislikes is well known.
which of
the
may
not
parties
have or
of
any
their
a
wed wbatf Isnotitbet3 oft 2sboy renee ent ylineupsencs Oe. vstisee bentsi3s
oa
a
a
jon bad ow sbitd s sewed eno aBw
to J$reteq sft to snsen99 sd?
* smcrtabiad Hak
Ss rere Bhs
8
bue beriups: esw ab aaa hitt of3 bas ,sBiad shits dt 40 aatbreug ed3 maswied
sis sidssovsti!
etow ofw ensitbyraug oft
no bstns1>
beteismins
oais wed
-agsizisem amsibybuy
to
owt ajnsisg
oii
ofa
esnetsq
si3.
bsd ebysw
Yo
eshtt
to jJeom ni
jo atasrsiat
sd2
boiswoums
yisdd
saod
sdt
03
to mokatvoxrq
no ensittam
.aataza¢
nt
,ferkT
tedi
aldT
bkisv s stusiienos of Jeegesnevbeatb
to oxstlew sia brkugetes 915
bas sasiokaiee
[enotsibs1aT
nolilw wel sat
to sitqe
evosmptixe
ubai
s dove
ai Dtig edi yawe svig o3 bentotas
to iledsd
,abtsw ried
sysizism
enoigsisbbagoo
sasisdat
o3 snetbisug t0 eeagatiism osthal
slox tnsatmotq « ysiq o3 baued 915 sgsitx1em sft oF soitxaq [au3o6 9d3 8 dows
9i3
gonte
,yibmoos?e
sidssoves31t
-O8S 36 (iSO)
as
ogetttém- sept x02 abtad oda
00)
P23
requirement personal
of
reason
being
the
social
norm
Hindus,
at
the
time
of marriage.
validity
of
there
the
Hindu
the
place
such
significant
are
Act
provisions
in
numbers
under
anomalies.
If,
and
The
omission
the
Hindu
for
facto
kinsman
having
the
bargain
of
transaction,
plead
capacity
to
the
doubtful the
that
enter
requisite
custody
his
into
consent?
validity
even
of
of
that
respect
regard
community
the
is
though
Bhagavathya
not
that
consent
fatal
except
Act
the
boy,
the
is nor
such
to
the
where
has
of
boy
marriages
on
to
boy
instance,
attaining
since
guardian
the
In
spite
have
taken
validity
been
presumed
to
402.
of
case
of
a
certain
is
caused
age
to
a
of
had
marriages
400,
of
he
authority
they
Mad.
the
of making
neither
such
[1962]
both
a distant
the
that
A.I.R.
the
in the
rise
submitted have
the
is desirous
invalid his
bride.
a minor
for
who
the
guardians given
nor
enumeration
presumed
of
say,
the
Law
wherein
94 v.
as
express
Hindu
past.
Sivanandy
the
such
consent
to
has
list
guardian,
marriage
is
the marriages
reason
this
can
of
consent
traditional
the marriage
of
systems
eliciting
implied
the
with
marriage
It
the
by all
fraud.
Marriage
instance,
by a de
the
the
down
certain
presumes
this
of
marriages.
majority
for
only
large
solemnized
is
laid
express
notice
confined
absence
of
or
been
bridegroom
be
It
under
neither
taken
been
prevents
law
force
that
has
minors.
has
in
of
for
not
that
Absence
marriage
ellement
Marriage
guardians
of
the
is
parties
has
the
the
It
consent
laws,
of
is
express
are
the
to
supply
of
be wetaan
¢ in
tad? os dove amstaye Shelia, tebau pees
Teeedz ,awsl tassels7
t8en05 eeszqxs Io gnitiotis sis esnoverq eon Dakoos oft ,eubnifl edi to edt of Iete2
Jon et tneanos
aes1qxs
Yo SsoneedA
sitedw igsoxs dmeenos bohdigqmt asmuverq wal .bus1l
egetrsem
lo omits ofz te
ot egativem siz to y3iblisv
to 65702
Yo tasmele
oft at sisd3 '
od? 30m wed whetH Lead¥sthert 9d9 xodstem tedd ineoltagte et 31 ania djiod alatedw
sexgsizism od3 Yo elton
to ftot¥sremuns .sbktad
eft Jedi’ ooese x atd3a rot at 31
stiqe
al
moist
eved esgatatem
to yoibilev
siz
meass esd t5A 9geittsM ubati
sdt o3 dooqes
dtiw ylao bentiaos
riowe bisgos
beimvesrq
.atomim
eld
seed
ot anoisivozq
ead yiinummos
ofa
01
beeuns
o3 sel
mavig
ef vod tonim
insserb 5 gntdam
esd
JoA
sgeirieM
base ersdmun
so to sgatiiem
s ,sonatent to avortesb
tol
,yse
ei ow
sit
sgtsi
moorgsbiad
.tl
.estismons
ojoest sb s yd bestamsfoe sdd gnived
lo ege O75 gnintaize no yod sii meso ,moltosens13 ef3
ed bed yartien
wlaque o3 yiIitoisus
sonta
bklevat
at ogsirtrsem
ons Scecen afd ton sgsttism
to s¥6 eegsiasem
dove jedi
bettimdve
oi soaig
asbey
tot
to ybodevo
ef 41
atd
jada
oink
od
asmeald
of3 Yo alsegied bsslq
19309
ftasen09
Pe sated ad ot bemvaexq maed svsd yedd dgewods mave
to
.asgeixzem dove
sds
,someteni
.nsibirevg ,yod sis
ubntH
esd ansibisug
to someeds sd
& te s2s9 9f3 nk anptbrsug Yo tet{ od3 to moleakmo oAT atajze5
sts e9its1eq
yiizofem
03 ysttosqso
éitebupaade
yitbifev Iutsduob
-tanq od
Lene Regarding
for
the
marriage
suppression
the
the
of
validity
interests
:
marriage
priority
of
a minor
a prior
of
of
girl,
guardian
a marriage
of
the
more
as
the
it
The
a duty
than
whose
is well
it
courts
is
have
:
a right
95
consent
settled
by a subsequent
unless
girl.
guardians
required
a mere would
prejudicial
considered and
that
guardian
grossly
is
not
to
the
guardianship
declared
affect
in
F
the
marriages
Va Lid ¢
(ii)
Canadian
Law
There
are
differences
various that
provincial
over
person
have as
is
not
full
12 years
because
his
or
of
21 years)
the
fact
contract
benefit. with
where
has
licence
a prohibition,
express
to
statutory
between
for
that
an
the
enforceable
the been
laws
of
against some
requirement issued
or
the marriage
provision
in
to
law
that
not
effect
solemnized
be
196g)
1 BR.
to
turn
invalid
or
B5.AliL,
vary
the
the
from
is
enter to
into be not
effect
of
speaking,
in violation
unless
statute
265.
such
This
out
Generally
25
Rastupieve.claranyilaly(
(these
prescribe
a marriage
will
may
parties
persons
solemnized.
which
consent.
require
because
capacity
the
a third
certain
ages
be
lacks
provinces of
of
may
him
of
solemnized
certain
marriage
infant
be
of
provisions
consent
consent
for
provisions
statutory
to
The
required
exact
18 years)
a marriage
before
The
or
be married. is
the
Generally,
(21 years
guardians
noncompliance
such
age
necessary
capacity
to
a binding
statutes.
a certain
parents
for
many
there
of
is
demonstrates
an
tase ted3 boligee Dhowatat plat lel jon blyow nsbbrcug Inaupeedia6yams jb oft of labotbuterg yieeosy al 3t eiteatiiae. to5 vabbttey. ald x
atk aiferatbraug baxebkenon ane aaxuos ad ita oda toeseors3at bain ects ena beeiisal bee” Cadgte 8 “sid bata & AaB stom rit
wel cetbeos) eis to enoteakvorg Josws
oft csowted agsnoteTith
sttupet anotelvorqg yroiutsie
,vyilets9D
(ti). »
ynam ots st9efiT ‘aan
.ascpteve Iefomlivowg evolrey
bttds » lo dtsenos (ervesy 81 so evesy [%) 5ge ntetves & TSvo 38A2 a9.b318q seusoed bostitte foe od of sxsivtam
dova efoetsq aipitss %6 stngano9 sAT mor?
vtsv wusifyy asge
at etdT
.bostameloe
otnt yedjas 03 ytosqes tom sd oJ tuo mut
nies1so
2k enstbraug
.smsen09
to sottalotvnt bostnasloe
biisvat
omoe
30 einstsq BB.
(arasy(S$ ot exeeySI
os teds $982 od? to seunced
yew dofdw mtd tenmtsge sidssototes
yilerens)
as at ateds saosin
borripss
edosi wel at tnetot
eaomtvotgq
Jom et moetsg
.boitssm od oF yatosqan [fst svad
sd yam sastuxan od3 sein’
to toate ed’ odbsseetq garbatd 6
Yo awal oAT
.thtsasd ete! 102
to jnsmettupet ent Astiw sonst iqmoonon
egaitism s 10 bsuael ased eel sonaoll arodw
od ton LLiw i
rininead aud totsididorg 88 dove
aozex3eqomab S3udRte sd to soshds aes da Mictiniiens ears ~
a ,
¥
oy
}
28S EA RE HALT oanita ie
a
.
‘a
ar
E23. a
. tintent
cleat
not
The
ou provisions
The
marriage
have
(except
that
in
the
Act
case
Persons
a marriage
96
tend.
of
a marriage
children). and
to
the
Alberta
provides
licence
statute
that
issued
the
solemnized
age
a person
to him
of a pregnant
over
are
woman
of
without
16 years
a marriage mothers
18 years
requiring
may the
OF
follows:
under
or
and
as
of
have
of
age
may
solemnized illegitimate
a licence
consent
of
issued
the
third
parties.
Persons their
between
between
mother.
consent
16 and
18 years
If
one
parent
of
the
other
Where
the
parents
has
judicial
parent
who
Where
of
18 require
the
consent
of
third
parties
to
marriage.
Persons and
16 and
the
a ward
is dead
parent
is
are
are
person's
'legal'
or
Welfare
is
government)
of
dead
consent
mentally
or
or
separated
the
child
mentally
‘de facto' the
the
of
both
incompetent,
father
the
sole
sufficient.
custody
parents
the
or
divorced
both
of
need
consent
is
the
consent
of
the
required.
incompetent,
guardian, of
the
or
(where
the
consent
the
person
Superintendent
of
is
Child
required.
96 Hobson v. See also: TOGA)
ato
Grey [1958], 25 W.W.R. 82. Julien Payne, ''Power on Divorce",
(Butterworth)
347:
97 Marriage
Aco
R.s.A.
U97i,
Chap.
226,
(sec.slO,ely,
18 ,. 19.
(2nd
ed.
alan {
-
| oe
7
se
Aa)
ae orn S2uteIe hi
aah ae wi sara
cenageYoexeayat rainyHoorag 8 36H dabvery Johogetrson od
.
Lov yale
besinasioe sgatrisin 5 to mid of housel opnsatt spatzine saved Son ,
Ssismizigs£klt
to exsditom bos semow aia sinh 6 7 ses
ROnk
oft at tq99x9) é
bouaet
sonestl
5 svad vem sissy 8i To sge int? tsvo ecosied
Tise
.(metbl ids ,
brtdd af4
to tases09
sdz actstupst
tuodstw basinmeloe
ogetrzam 6 bre -satsisq
02 eetiisq
baidd
to tnsanoo
oda
stiupotBE baa OL nsswied
enoarst
.sgeitiiam thedd Loa.
radia?
sion
dtod
of3
to
Jnsemoa
ans
,tnatsqmoont
besn
yiletnem
axrsoy BL bre df nosewied
10
besb
et Jusreq
smo
ancerst
ae -x9ff30m a ma
dgatoLttnie st eget sade std. So caeene sit to tnsamos sit botsiaqse xo bestovkh e+e e%aeveg afd sxadW ,boittupet
et
dueago>
si3
,amstognmoant
ai meeteq
eft
etariw)
to
biido
ond
ylistremao besb. sts
,nBibrsug
bitdd to tasboosarasque
to vbodeuo
‘ojos?
9b!
to
Istotbyt
eed onw JjootEaq
einstaq
Ated exsiW
|
'Lsgel'
e*aoersq silt: Yo
aft to Insanos, od] (Jnommrsveg sit tobrews .botinpat et stattow
| ~ ba barf)
$8 Ate (ddsowxes
3u8)
«a
eh
EB
IRD
. (eee) sive naflut. fe font 508
Val
OL ,8f . TE .dL .992@ ,O8S .qeddD , INGE
to
Ava. SoA sgektieM
‘ye
124. Consent
of
third
(1)
the of
parties
is not
person age
is between
and
both
incompetent
(2)
the is
Persons parents apply
or to
dispensing The
of
years to
supreme
with
who
three
on are
18 years
are
court
Act
also
a marriage. married
(a)
or
The not
have
when
The
allow
the
or
mentally
guardian.
18 years
and
require
the
get
requisite
to
court
the
judge
The
marriage
(c)
The
parties
consent
of
their
consent
for
an
the
effects
can
order
been
Act
of
British
as
to
the
Act
provides
licence
court
of
or
the
issued
lack
18
(subject
or; or
man
elaborate
third are
a person or
as
is more
the
between
ceremony
together
of
place
ceremony,
the
provisions
that
of
16 and
is void
consummated;
Columbia
consent The
between
consent
taken
after
lived
wife.
a marriage
marriage
has
and
of persons
has
to
have
for
are:
prior
and
marriage.
provide
requisite
intercourse
(b)
the
to
exceptions
parties
Marriage
a supreme
no
16 and
marriage the
the
of Alberta for
able
dead
18 years
or widower.
district
The
Carnal
Marriage
required
is
who
attempts
cohabited
statute
not
without
exceptions).
The
widow
are
and
consent.
Marriage
consent
and
there
is between
16 and
guardians
the
person
where
16 years
parents
and
a divorcee,
between
required
parties
as
county
court
judge
a person
under
16 years).
which
the
is
follows:
under
a marriage
than
16 years
solemnized
considers
it
Persons
of
age
(except
expedient
over
may
the
to
age
Inoan0d
2 Yo
set
Jom at oxotlw bertupes
, 7»
;
Ba)
as
dian is sins Relarerniente re < 0
reine
-
baob oxe ee LMA
witelbtivg of af sxeds
=e
box
“e
bos
‘ y
»
bore exaey Bf bas at neswied at salt rewobtw to wobkw
i
\ane
th
(8)
_s9stovib 6 al oe ee
ttoda to tasenop sii oxkupss odw avsoy BL bas af lies anoetsT
as2 jasenoo
etietups: sid Jeg o3 olde jon 18
tobro
as to}
osbut twos
baa ensitbisug 10 ajnsiBq
totzielb ™ Jmw0s smsitque
-tneenoo Assi
lo atostte
oft sot shivorq
SI bus af meewied
josfdve)
anoersq
oft etqmetas
to oxskrrem
brov at 4ue2n09 stiatypsa ‘ets
néswisd
oT
ogs brian 6 M0 Inseneo
sf? tuodtiw bet-r20m S16 ow assy
anoliqeoxvs
sfT
.(emottqooxs
aout Ps)
Ishzead (2)
coed ead agsiyxem edT (d)
aft tetis svad esiaxeq sAaT (>)
Fa
mam en tsdtesgoi bevil bas bettdedos, -ettw
add
nsdit sanatodals stom
at dokdw esitsieq
tewoflol
to
edt ot sékay astiping ent
to ;hssemmuenos
yaoms1s9
diiw sntenaget
oats 395A sgetrieM oAT
soslq medat esd saxvoorstnt
tro .xaomexs5
siz oF yiqqs
2i stduwlod
detxiach
brtds siz to tneanvo
as o78 anolekverq sdT
bas
(aay yd
do JoA egstrieM oAT
sti o2 a8 si19dLA
4
~~
to sauasie
.egeby em bil 101 ‘bantuper
vem oge to exsey of sobou foateq 8 3843 esbivosq 394 oustzsen i
snip a.
ogatttam 8 10 beweet yaar eam 8 evaed jon
:
Zp of
19 years
requiring
the
may the
have
a licence
consent
Persons
between
following
third
(1)
of
third
the
age
parties
Both
issued
a marriage
solemnized
of to
16 and their
of
require
the
consent
marriage:
(where
guardians
19 years
both the
parents
persons
are
under
19
years);
(2)
Sole
parent
guardian parents
(3)
Sole
(i.e.,
parent
of
the
person
are
not
joint
surviving
parent
who
is sole
in cases
where
both
guardians);
parent
(where
(where
both
the
other
is dead);
(4) Legal guardian
parents
are
dead);
(5)
Official
or
are Consent
of
the
guardian,
county
dead
third
court
and
judge
there
parties
supreme
court
(where
is no
is not
judge
both
legal
parents
guardian).
required
where
(1) the third party is 'non compos mentis" (i.e.
(2)
the
suffers
third
from
party
is
a mental out
(3) the third party refuses unreasonably
or
from
of
disorder);
the
or
undue
cannot
search.
be discovered
province;
withholds
consent
motives;
(4) the third party's whereabouts and
without
parties.
parents
joint
and
after
are
unknown
a diligent
of
a
'
; '
aot
:
7
J
;
1a)
20
ft
ke,
ee
|
ow
he
;it
i
md
a
swordsiw bestiasfor ogabrian &bas pamieesiinaery do snsenoa off!Sstupss axsey et basafto 986ieee enoetst ~ :sgetrtem trodd oFestasq brids gatwolfot oda ots etne1sq diod stedw) agasaag fol (1) Qf ssbew eaoatsc o3 to afiakbieig Imrdt + (e1s9y efoe at ofw tneteq
> erat rod
..9.4) taoraq aloe (S)
tee
tod exetw esas2 ni noeisq sd3 to metbisug
hae
ataersq
aaana dh
rsiizo odd easdw)
sts
jon
jotot
i(emptbtsuvg
snsisq
gatvivawe
alo2 (€)
;(baob ef Ins7sg msibreug Ingold (4)
978 edtneyaq diod s1siw)
7(bssb opbyt
txveo smetque
2une%aq ditod o1sriw)
,ostbiauvg Isiok?0
(2)
sgbult txs09 ytauwoo Jo
.(detbtsug [egol on ai stos!3 bos beab ors sTaitw
boxtupet
ton
"etjqsh soqmon non
at esttasq brid? oft to Jnsenod
at yoxaq brivtt saa (1)
¢(xabroabb iia s mot etelttue 49.) tsontvoxg aft 20 juo et ydusq brid3 sd3 (S)
jnsemo> ebloddtiw 10 esevter ytisq brid ed3 (£)
in dot Same
ieovisgom subesr govt so yfdanoesemmy ;
ohne
oworsiny etn aduodsatedw a'yI5Bq brida eds (a) ton
eae
* iH
wae
.
q
b
+
a
hi
phat
n 7
|
en ve
e
ae
al
7
Wt ghd uy
uf
bi
na VU
me
o,, |
al
ae secniaias ifiaienret gael
i
| Pe apie
C)
gen
sae -
.
Olin)
Aare
© Ate
Or re & ob igs (ote lt ala
|
in”
:
fia) wl
7
i
of . i
126. In get
from
such
the
stituations
requisite
a supreme
the
third
court
person
party
or
who
consent
county
is being
must
court
married
obtain
judge
in
and
who
a declaratory
lieu
of
for
the
the
cannot order
necessary
consent.
The lack and
of
Marriage consent
19 years
The without
Prince [G]
who
marry
of
CEREMONIES
AND
(i)
Law
the
marriage important
is
in
in
issue,
ceremonies,
Manitoba,
for
the
court
namely,
dextarum
person is
of age
is not
effects
effect
under
Hindu
of
generally
the
invalid.
marries
Ontario
lack
or
junctio,
the
seven
steps
around
the
sacred
The
ancient
Hindu
law
recognized
and
fire
systems
have
laid
the validity
and
of
consent.
are
simple
down
into
or
gifting
away
Saptapadi
or
the
installed eight
for
forms
numerous,
of a Hindu
take
Kanyadan
Panigrahana
other
Sastras
Whenever
the
account
the
three of the
the
occasion.
of marriages.
Brahma
The
gift
costly
of a daughter,
garments
of jewels,
and
to a man
after
honouring
learned
decking her
girl,
taking
are: (Ll)
16
invalid.
Newfoundland,
the
the
between
not
who
of
MARRIAGE
ceremonies. the
order
any
consent
16 years
of marriage
character,
complex
court
provide
OF
formalities
contractual
and
MODES
of
requisite
under
of
provide
marriage
the
judicial
do not
to
The
person
statutes
Island
Hindu
attempts
without
any
requisite
Edward
elaborate
also
a marriage.
provincial
While and
on
marriage the
The
Act
her
with
by presents
in the Veda
and
They
of
tabz0 gwieavetseh ‘6 nietdo teum Snwimted e wiseassen oi to want at ogbut J1wo09 PENN: ERE ict (eee
bs bdo?
opal «Insane.
od? Io 2ioetie os 102 sbivosg of a3qmes3e Oele 39h sgetiisM oft al asewisd soateq vos to egsitiam siT’ Nepieenie & m0 tasenos -bifavait
jon el tnseno
sitetupst
to Asst
od3 Juodtiw ytrem ow exssy Cf bas
esiizem ofw sae io exseyOL tebnu noateq yas to sgeaitsem odT .bifsvirk bogs oftsinO .troen0>
joa af rebto
, beet bouciwet
to doef
Io t5si%6
tivo
Istotbut sttetupes edz tuodtiw
.sdodinsM
sit
to asdusete
rol sbivozrq
Intonivoriq
siT
ton ob baslel ‘brswba sont+4
IMOMaASD
[D9]
wad ubaty (t) eiquia eavotsmn
sia
ametaye
mob
biel
wbrtH seit
-izkg
of3
todto
ovsi
astiese
s to yaibtfev tovesos
to yews
ond
otnt
gnisiig
yoiT
sit
vot
syekizam
to eottit aso? ods slid
uboth sf
antl
ssa
to gatdes efx yo Lhggnige? -noftesoso
1Sbav
lac laialaeciad at Lsutositq09
-2oinomeyeo
¢vilertamsg
10 osbeyosd
a4gop
sd
eds .yleman
bas
«sigmoo
bas sta1odsis
,syeat
ok et egsitrisam
,eeinomesa5
ads bes ,ottoavt mrtetxeb
Joss rogmt
xo snsdsigtned edd
belletjant s1ki beawoese sdt bryors
eqete
nevee
ala
.eegstitem to eario? tdgte bextngéses wel ubstH taotons odT j
‘4
é
i
:
:
,
-
’
,
a
:
amiext (1) hie
he
dat wed gnbdoeb 19338 tetdguab 6“36Sha oe
3
ty
7
Bianco xed gntswoned bas atnamng ie
ht
ete
i ee
ee
sin
i
a
|
27 of
good
conduct,
invites
(2)
is
called
gift
with
of
of
its
Brahma
himself
rite.
to
who
has
a priest
been
who
decked
duly
lat vaesacrificetduringethe.course
performance,
the
father
according from of
the
the
two
they
call
it Daiva
rite.
to
gives
the
rule,
bridegroom,
sacred
pairs,
law,
that
away
his
after
daughter
receiving
for
the
fulfilment
a cow
and
a bull
is named
or
the Arsha rite.
Prajapatya
The
gift
after
the
of
he
a daughter
has
text
your
by her
addressed
'May both
duties',
bridegroom
and
is
the
of you
has
called
father
couple
perform
shown
with
together
honour
Prajapatya
and
to
the
rite.
Asura When
the
after can
(6)
father
Arsha
When
(5)
the
a daughter
ornaments,
officiates
(4)
the
Daiva
The
(3)
whom
bridegroom
having
afford,
given to
bride
herself,
that
is called
the
receives
as
much
kinsmen
according
to
a maiden,
wealth
as
and
the
to
he
his
own
will,
a maiden
and
her
Asura rites.
Gandharva The
voluntary
union
of
baits noad aedodyroslgusb #30 Sig od? | Wud ode2antag # OF Rae
aN
seios oft gutaub eotitane 8 2BaBsBlo#tio -93i7 ayvted af ileo yous ind
éwelt
i
®
hen
tunis
siaaDasaias asa haaiad asvig: ssl
ee
ae @
a
ee a
guivisosy isd%e ,slua sit of bee
tnomittiu? ofa 103 ,mootgebiid sf3 mort
.
to Iiud s bas goo & ,wst beisse ond to
ne
.o3i1 gietA of3 bomen al Janus ,etisq ows
.
syjsqstesd (4) bas tediet sod yd tasdgusb s io s2ts oT }
ij
nh
fittw olquoa sft beesetbbe asd od j
;
i
1832s
|
;
SLD
soldsgo0t arrolveq voy to djod veM' axed odd |
ett o3 iwoned nwode
al SS)
asd bos ,'astiub mwoy \owé
‘? re)
aos syteqetext beflso et etihathethcl mt Pavan
bss
|
.wsbisem 6 ctsibintcip moorgeblad
|
saa @) | oo Sead) ae
sd4 nsdw
I
a.
ok uk dle
dad te atin ara
1 ats of bis momenta aly od ,brolts nao e
re
eres
YY =
i
\ a
Ay, |
hid dip’ on
pyasdbaep (a)
hie ane aioe howe, wy
v5
| eae my
Cia)
orm
teared obird
Pie Sto ainda Bil ;
Feb wes
]
.so3ky gaugh belins ef 3649 —
ry Pri
ee
~
e,e’- 402 220 398) agate ‘Hbatf sit >
ot jnepleneiaint: ed Yen ogelazéit ubekB A (ED
ahi
bis sodky Yxsmodeus sid Mtiw eonsby0556
7
,ofsisd4 yitsq ted3ts te astaomexao
al
a
sbulont #stnomerss bas estis dove etedW (2) nevee
to gmisiet az
at ted3) tbeqsiqse ofa
oh
yviantot ebbad bas mootgobiazd edz yd aqote sgpizism, sf3 (e1tt
eri ‘onal gatbaid
betoae
otbetupes
of estiyaq
moteyo
von dtw
odd oF 2b saves!
sprebroson
i
went
ue
em
ae
et qsta diasyse
estmomeyes odd oditoeocxq
seco.
listing
bar sisiqmoo aamoosd
noise) 103
os
,sevewol
.Jon eeob
JoA oT
tud egsttism eft to mottestameloe
mi at dotdw
ogsttiem Isknometss
to orrol 8
-Yiyeq radire of aldsotiqqs sgseuv bas
aeob Ji Lbsqaigqee oft to sonatrogut aris agsteaiqns 3oA oda dguoslT
i
fat
te (.b9 dail (eewbsM)
(€@@l) “ogee
Jim
bas
ge
7
wed
Ps
"
|
saveM
e0r
Ieee not
insist
must
be
either valid
upon
in
same.
accordance
party
to
custom.
caste.or
the
the
with
that
the
customary
marriage.
Whether
a custom
All
of
certain
it
The
is
ancient,
and
It
cannot
be
it
is
the
usage
that
Under
the
Indian
enlarged
makes
the
the
usage and
or
must
a custom
by parity the
it
to
of
of
be
by
a
any
a family,
opposed
not
that
ceremonies
course,
orpot
not
is
and
of
custom
and
law
insists
rites
locality
reasonable
beyond
Act
custom,
a caste
a particular
be
the
it. must
public
policy.
reasoning
reason
of
sub-
since
the
Venpe
it
to
contract
Marriage as
civil
Act,
Marriage
is
marriage
1954.
The
a marriage Act,
open
and
modes
have
to
two
it
Hindus
if
solemnized
of marriages
the
marriage
one
parties
less
the
than
notice be
is
the
to
thirty
days
given.
The
published
office.
Any
intended
parties
to
of
is
the
in writing
to
it
they
under
prescribed
by
so the
this
desire Special Act
are
follewsss
When
to
law,
by
to
the
the
of
marriage
has
immediately
marriage
may
shall
the
a copy
the
in
under give
district
resided
preceding
officer
before
solemnized
marriage
officer
affixing
person
to be
the
shall some
for
Special
notice
thereof
in which
at
least
a period
of
not
date
cause
oe
on which
every
conspicuous
expiration
of
thirty
such
in his
days
object
WOH!
"Hindu
Law",
(Bombay)
108 Chaptér
II
and
III
of
the
Act
(1966
-
13th
ed.),
at
notice
place
marriage.
Mulla,
such
691
eo
ph
Jegely g Sas
‘s 9@ teum@ ,setu0. Yo ,modeua oAT
OS
iv. So
-dué wis yd mo3@uD & TO mosava 93865 eek 4
saum 3k ,Viimst s to xo. yitlssol
Liste
asakiio
a
syab yivitls osdd seal,
sat
.nevig el sotson ee
etd ak soalq avousiqenco
|
ee
emoe ak yqoo & goixtiis xdbedetidug
sd of
ceed omen
tostdo ayeb ysririt to notisitqxs ait esoted ent gouteq yaA ae
Tai
rook},
alcine am sf3 03
is,
V
omenege
a
.
a
fe Before witnesses
the
marriage
shall,
declaration
in
and
the
marriage
officer.
The
marriage
officer, as
the
or
at
the
may
may
solemnized
presence
of
declaration
such
parties
is
be
other
place
desire,
and
the
shall
solemnized
the
and
three
officer,
countersigned
the
within upon
marriage
be
at
parties
office
of
reasonable
such
sign
by
the
the
marriage
distance
additional
fee
a
therefrom
as
may
be
prescribed. When
shall
the
enter
signed
a joint
Hindu
as
absolutely,
In
mode civil
solemnized,
a book
and
the marriage such
marries
of
that
family
of
that
date
becomes
and
is
governed
such
and
a marriage under
and
the
the
three
that
when
Act,
he
ceases
share
by
in
and
the
the
vests
rule
officer
shall
be
witnesses.
is
his
longer
certificate
the
separated
no
marriage
a member to
be
of
an
coparcenary in him
of
survivor-
Gum (11)
three
been
in
to of
family
member
property
ship
parties
consequence
undivided
has
a certificate
by the
The
marriage
Canadian
the
modes is by or
various or
Canadian
procedural
issue
legal
Taw
of
mode.
provinces
routes
a marriage The
to
are
a marriage
licence;
second
there
this
is
generally
ceremony. perhaps
is by publication
speaking The
first
a purely
of banns;
this
109
S. N. at.)
Bagga, (8)
"Statutory
Changes
in Hindu
Law",
(Allahabad)
(1969)
moxtets(3 sonsteib Sidatoesst middtw soslq sedde"déue gs to ,189iTto od ysm es 38? fenottibbs nove modu bas /sttdeb yen" acktxsq S13 os .
teoilio
ed [fade
)
sgsitrxsm efy
stsottisres
,bsstameloe
a
‘
r
}
bedit5e 91g;
nosed esd sgsiiram edz nodW v
7
dove bas dood s at steokitizes
'
by
t
s x9309 ¢
.
Iisde ag
if
,sseesasiw gstds ed bos sgeitram ofa of eeltisq oft yd bengte | pa, woe to sednem
8 asriw jerit at sgeiziem
ns 9d 03 esess9 cial
ei
~roviviue
eft _
sd ,49A odd isbnu eslrtem yiimst ubnth-intot 8
ot stade
mind ot atasy
& foue to soneupsenoo
eid bas yLbest
brs nies
isa
to tedasm Gebivihes
eamoosd aitsb fom to a eiaeqore
jo siex oft yd asynol on benteveg ef bas visduloeds” 4
ofp
;
COL cide
wel meibenad (it) 0 anidasqe
desit sit
yllsaxsns9
sis
srads aeomkvorg astbsasD
evobrav ofa nt
«
2
.yoomeaiso sgatixem 8 02 estuor tsaybss071q 20 eebom sexi
vleaug s eqedisq et etd? paonsotl ogetizam s to suset yd abi shom ekid ;anasd to aoltsotiduq yd at broose edT 4
(Q0@L) (bededetta) ," wat wbabk
.sbom iegel to Livio es 3 § O-0N6
7
134 is
a religious
general
ethnic
or
to keep
a
(a)
marriage
which
with
or
the
filled
all
Marriage
by
and
permitted
two-fold.
open
to
general
kind
of
state
a
control
civil
first
knowledge. over
a
ceremony;
by
The
is
special
a religious
is
and
third
banns;
modes
law,
is
The
the
formation
by Licence
almost
all
the
is
either
the
sole
other
the
parties
Generally
recognized
The
from
followed
In
licence,
before
ientee
of marriage.
more
and
civil
dispensation
these
some
contract
solemnized
of
to maintain
of
one
customs
public
is
by
requirement
marriage
second
marriage
civil
purpose
the
the
including
religious
The
which
permitted
assortment
certificate,
etc.
mode
chosen
take
a marriage
(1)
the
and
is
the
a mode
principal
of
state
requirements
the in
of
mode is
together
to be
parties
detail
which
is
the
must
be
are:
should
have
capacity
in
forms
to
marry; (2)
Should
fill
regarding
(3)
Should
the
and
sign
affidavits
capacity;
satisfy
medical
requirements
including
provincial
(CacadinstyVED-)
110 Viz.,
non-criminal
common
law
statute.
the
steps
issued.
requirements
parties
is
a marriage
required
statutes
licence
steps
The
and
or
this
Where
by or
provincial
must
these
mode
alternatives.
mode the
provinces
ful-
.wel Livin yd betaimisq bos aehetaatee
eh tevli eft
.
.bLo-ow3 at wens
ooHiees sit .egbeivon Lexensg 04 msq bab: noltssxot sft xsvyo [o1tno2 s3s32e to bata soo a
iid
e. 7
aan ayers Soe
=e
SP wy
to sbom s ei etd’ esonivo7g edz Lis Jeomisal 1939303
cee
sbom Inqivsiig oft 10 obon ofoe sd tsdate ak doidw ogstzzem
sd od ef sgstviem’s ackdw
.aeviisnretis ‘rasdso arom z0 = datw va
git
ai asigisq
eqete
Sada
oft
[8355
ae
sit to beriupss 40 yd bar Kary ont ret besinmsloe e
ni siste
sotutssa
16966
Fane
ta toasenby aieCheaters See
~fut sd 22um dotdw einsmetiupss sis bee sided Java aolszsq ani |
-boueet onso bt Saree wast ai i sonsobi
& etotsd phe
578 aymamotiupst bas -eqsde sees ettestd, ty
a
-
:
Wadeg
edivebitis ogte bas emxot sy at L122 bivode 1 4a
setawaue anboneges ae
Z
Jee se* Ty ajnsmstiups: Ispitbem iad 3822 bil blued . i
7
a
es
03 ysiveqss sved bloode esttusg ST a)
a
==
+
el le Ai
_
~~
tr
‘
se ;
i
7
-
baie
f
US.
(4)
Should party
(5)
Pay
have
the
requisite
third
consent;
any
fees
or
charges
for
the
licence.
In some
of
obtaining
of
the
in
accurate
marriage
detail.
also
provinces
As
several
Since
licence.
the
is
a resident
information,
a general
celebrate
there
In
rule,
consent,
other the
marriage,
etc.,
provinces,
issuer
but
requirement
of
there
is
on
the
the
requirements
a marriage
are
and
issuer differ
licence
exceptions
to
onus
may
in not
this
rule
differ
much
provinces.
the
exact
procedural
etements
do not
jaeSb
(Alberta)
The
Marriage
(British Columbia)’ Upp olBe oD on Oy eldi.
(Manitoba) Chap. lob
(Prince
The
Edward
ST ae ae 8
ReS. A.
Marriage
The Marriage Act 19705 sec. 8,7
(New Brunswick) 12 = 13 26
(Ontario) U33 LS
The
Act
dee
L970 Act
Chap
R:S.B.C.
R.S.M. 1970 a ere
efhe Marriage
Act
226
Sec.
1960
Chap.
50
»RsS.N.B..1952,
Marriage
Act
R.S.O.
1960
Island)
The
Marriage
Act
Chap.
228
P.E.I.
3, 9;
Chap.
10,
232
Sec.
(as
amended
Chap.
139,
Sec.
Sec.
5 to
1l,
1969
Chap.
11 9,
by
9,
27,
a
(Saskatchewan)
The
(Newfoundland) Lape. tobesec.
The ay —
(Nova
Scotia)
The
Chap.
2o7,
pec.
Marriage
Act
Solemnization 19
Solemnization
Ll ="1s
R.S.S.
1965
of Marriage
of Marriage
Chap.
338,
Act
R.S.N.
Act
R.S.N.S.
Sec.
19
1952
1967
-
30
ayoo sd bas, sascetivpet seein
a ,
ysueat
odd ao af ..979
ot retitb ejnomettupas
,IM9aK0D
ae “yd en mn 6.0 Seeie
ogeltyem nit39) 7
-2aonivorg radso ~ as ole
:
nt
|
54
aly
jon yan oonentl systxtsn s to yeue2et silt alirt Is1s099 & eA
a
-Lisieb
os
olut etd) 03 emoitqesxs sts sist jud ,sgetrtem oft eiaideles oats
pe lnaponiiverg {[s19vee ok doum t971fb
Istubss07q jonxe odd sonte “4
Jon Ob ca
tak
ie
o
io
;
5
f
aise
; eipeal a
|
;
.
te) [i ,OL ,@ ,8 .o82 ASS .qedd OVC .A,2.9 foA sgalateM odT ‘as rsdbAyr von |
.@ .092 SES .qsdD O8CL 0.8/8.8 JOA sgekraeM eT | renter ee th | 81 tt ae et Al -
yd bobaomp
es) 02 .qedd OFOl
Heures
Mis.H 399A ogiroll; ost (edo inal)
AS= Sf .@ 48.998 OVO to I .gexd ~© .992 CEL
.qedd ,Sc@l .4.4.8.9 toA ogetraeM sAT Gloiwanuvid wo)
iL o4 @ ,952 88S .qsdd O82L .0.2.8 dod aerial edt oath
(obtssHO)
AL .€L
“
YS . qed COCE .1.9.9 439A sgatraeM ofT (Onset bravia sontse) |
|
se,
yey IS - €f s@ e088 :
O& - GL i982 .BCE .qndo 200K ,2,2.8 sone
yarnena doh epaastait Bohshote aan
a
Lave
a.
T36.
from of
province
Alberta The
are
issue
described
person
of
performed person
province,
Marriage
Every
of
to
who
the
only is
Act
a summary
be
to
requirements
the
licence
within
and
authority
be married
must
the
three
months
a marriage
date
ceremony
may
be
marriage
take
the
following
(2)
Produce
a medical
a blood
test
licence
officer. steps:
foe
to
certificate
prove
of
absence
of
ie
Produce
a completed
form
of par-
ticulars
regarding
capacity,
consent,
etc.,
in
affidavit
F issuer (4)
Produce to
sands
sworn
: of marriage proof,
establish
the
province
the
the
Pay
an
the
of
of
(1)
(3)
of
provides:
married
marriage under
the
below.
of Alberta
must
of
statements
the
to before
the
etc.,
accuracy
made
‘of
; 114 licenses.
witnesses, the
form
by
of
the
all
applicant
LEZ The
Marviace
Act,
R.S.A.
1970
Chap.
226
Beetion
1s.
The
Marriage
Act,
R.S.A.
1970
Chap.
226
Section
22.
The
Marriage
Act,
R.S.A.
1970
Chap.
226
Section
13.
i
114
The
be
steb efy Yo atigaom sends midstw
os yes meres agers & bonSogo off
og
.Yeotto sgeivxam sdt Yo cotvotion is ebayLaebam °
wba
o
taqeye-gatwolfot of3 sie siecial blabla ot et ony moet nal
songokt uh dee (0 tage
(D
be
ye)
isoibem sa ayeuert ®
to pe
to sonsada svozd
ah ‘
Harte
tga
Ad
oi |
aay
oJ Jast boold pb
|
CLE ir idgve ~tsq to iro? bsasiqmos
P soubortd
ce)
co 7
etakoagso gnkbtages exeluots
to mtot ond nt bos ..339
o> rt
an
_jasenoa
oi2 syoiedof mows Jivebiite as iS sgangott sgeivinm io raue2et , «299
aaeeonstw , 100%] ——
(a)
7 .
iis te —_—
y
t ie
sad fetta seeos
Imsoligqgs oii’ yd sbsm einemosase edd ,
| 7)
ao
Pepi
we
’
Aa
4} ee
i ine
hae
thas
apes
es
Lag we tndth
=
ip
ml
ae
ae
al we .ten), 60 ih
=
L375 if
any
statement
issuer
(5)
of
Produce
other
(6)
a
court
and
Produce
proof
medical
certificates
The
the
applicant
or
imprisonment
Act
regarding
is
i
for issue
duty
The
failure of
or
nullity
the
and case
of
16 years. of
of
inform
third
the
licence
a third
required
of
party
the
an a provisions. .
punishable
Ad
in
consent
is
or
consent
under
to
the
is pandas
age,
issuer
consent
statutory
statement.
girl
parties.
whose
a false
of
written
has
The
appeal
Produce
by
certificate
a divorce
no
a pregnant (7)
of
doubted
biS
licences.
proof
decree
is
issuer to
by a fine of
licences
observe
a marriage
or
all
the
imprisonment is
Marriage
by
fine
requirements
of
the
licence.
Act,
R.S.A.
1970
Chap.
226
Section
14
ThéesMarGiagesAct,;
(RiSeA.
1970.Chap.
226
Section
15
The
116
LL] Marriage
Act,
R.S.A.
1970
(Chap.
226
Section
16
ThebMarriagse
Act,
R.S.A.
1970
Chap.
226
Section
17
The
Act,
R.S.A.
19/70
Chap.
226
Section
23
118
bo Marriage
making
punishable
415 The
for
anal qo go70vib B to 00% 3 tile
ae ii
-anthoon at fseqqs on an 99128b
ort
eeu!
or cogel Yel
Wt Cyer tie wie
bie
sates oan %,
RSL
(a)
yrsq
as3stiw ah ely
aria _to teueet
bridd @ mrotnt
o3 to betivpss
a
na
an
buidd to tasenoo
edt
ry
cae
Litg Josngsrtq 5
NAS exdioy al tebas
x
erytem
io veso oft ai sotaotitziso Isothem
gonsahl
_
Trem
()
-asi3t89
oF Ytub oi asif al tmsen0>
8ir -enotervotq
seaorw
viotueie
~
anidem rot soommoettqm2 4o enki s yd eldedelaug ef tasotiqqs sAT anit
vd sidedetnuq
et asoneotl
sia to einometiups:
to rayeel
offT
CLT snomesst2 salsi s
eft Iisa syisado of sxvlisi roi jnqmmoatiqat 10. .sonsotl
aa
sgstausam 68 to sueet
|
|
gnibreget
zit
.
i
39A
AI goltos2 3¢S .qedd OVCL .A.2.A .30A ogeizreM sdT
af nobtoe® OSS .qadd OVE! .A.2.9 yaad ogetrisM oft
io
¥ i,
!a
s ien x or aeb
pry apatsisie '
aye
soet aa
Ke
138. Once
is free
the
marriage
to have
licence
the marriage
has
been
ceremony
issued
to
performed
the
any
applicant,
time
he
within
three
months.
It may
for
be
marriage
Nova
in the
Scotia.
recognized licence
pointed
out
provinces
Religious in
and
that
these
the
of Alberta,
modes
such
provinces.
a ceremony
marriage
as
The
performed
licence
Prince
the
Edward
publication
Marriage
is
Act
Island,
of banns provides
by a registered
sole
and
are for
clergyman
mode
not a marriage
or
a
eounsellor.
The
of marriage
by licence
Church
of
England.
By the
Dispensations
of
the
of Henry
or
authorized
of
the
any
mode
person
licenee. times
Through
the
time
mode
came
eventually
came
to
be
It
lost
civil
acts.
mode
in view
governments
matters.
which
to
be
Act of
had the
its
as
issue
Church
of
England
a civil
administrative
regarding
the
issuers
continues
to have
by provincial
a religious civil
the
in
the
made
and
mode
and
of
is
practices
Pence
and
Canterbury
a marriage in
colonial
Canada;
and
provincial
character
changes
flavour
of
throughout
mode
licences
with
Peter
to
church-affiliated
be contrasted
in the
the Archbishop
prevalent
of
origin
power
the
may
its
concerning
ace
generally
accepted
Act
of
This
recognized
Tudor
influence
this
marriage
by the
derives
and
became
by the
other
a
provincial
procedural
publication
a religious
of banns
mode
law.
120 25 Hen. 1 EELaz
8 Ch. 21 Section Chie 1
3.
Repealed
102
Ph.
and
M.C.
8 revived
«BEL
ew
ebom aloe oft at gonsokl egatrzsn orld todd, twa besatog od yam 31 brs eidaliad brnwbit godkxt
.attedIA to asomivorg odz ak snksee 102 -sb3os2 svoK
tom 81s eisai to sadrane idan az owe. asbom subtatiod sgsiqisnt s 102 esbivoig
JoA sgetxyeM
5 to dsleeeeate baxsjatge:
odT
,a9spniverg seeds
8 yd bemxeltsq
at heskagooss
yaomerss
s bus sonsalt - tol{sanuoa
esotjosiq
siz ot obgtao
atk waviseb
somestt
yd ogaixtsm to sbom sAT
bas 99989 teieT gatnredm0o to xobuT 9f9 YA .bapignd to dowd of3 Yo viudyesns0
to godeitdHatA srs
egsitism {stnolos
bis
nt
s seek
o3
basignd
to Asavdd
7 sbernso PERE
Istontvoitq B smeo9d
OSt
tewoq
IIV¥ vuasH
bsd
o19
mt obom fivio
bas tSJ981sd5
390A sda
oda
TED inslevexq
to omby
to enoltaensqeid
yd bestiontus
to ie
msostsq
atin ait —
vilevensg
ses
oda
7 od smo
betqsoo8
hesetilite-doweds
ett
prone aida eemts
41
(lleuaneve
.etoe sgat3zam@
,
Istontvorq
sda yd obsm asgnedo
Istubssotg anned
ssto
to moktsatiduq
sbom avotgifs1
ovisearteinimbs
bos esonsoit
to evsueet
to bom Pre) dtiw
s et bas wovelt
To
-aORE,
sd ot omBD
teol
yn
|
sf3
to wetv at sbom Ityts
oft antbisgoy milentmaice i.
Saree
sd yam —
-.
oa
slishalk have 8 sven of aounttaoo Pee 911
.wel Etvko Islomtvorq
yd bestmgosor . Cie
i)
Sie
bovived 8 .9.M bos a a ef
4
Se
ee -£ noisoe@ If ig 8 ,79H @S %) ee ae sti
‘py
139% (b) Marriage The
early
number mode
of
was
ceremony
of
of
facts
as
within
the
parish
priest
voidable. from
age
of
of
did
about
to
intervene
not
Manitoba,
the
was
the
made
were by
priest
to
the
is an
public of
to
wholly
a
this
by children
or
a matter
ecclesiastical
solemnization
parish
traced
“bann"
marriages
governed
the
be
institution
marriages
were
local
and
of
that
parties into
New
it
gave
the
banns
the
was
of
the
provincial
to
be
able
the
law
marriage
place
in which
in
It
warning
marriage
of
the
thus
gave
or
take
other
to
at
for
(e.g. the
save
or
their an
opportunity
prevent
where
British
children
action.
to
people
Columbia,
publication
him
another
parents
a means
parish.
provide
had
the
or
could
suitable
far
acts
void
parents
society,
their
of
inform
it
that
in a parochial
from
to
also
fact
and
attempt
knowledge
relationship
that
or
an
ecclesiastical
marriage
a nullity.
marriage
Ontario)
due
the
priest
for
have
notice
was
or move
would
render
the marriage
marriages
Brunswick,
and
matrimony:
of
travel old
for
would
capacity
would
which
to
prevent
clandestine
the
which
purpose
parish
of
etc.,
a safeguard
in
the
lack
degrees, fact
a practical
of
parties,
publication
of
serve
a marriage
enter
normally
Some
of
was
guardians
or
by the
a statement
foolish
and
may
The word
for
England,
practice
banns
any
solemmizing
secret
or
Tudor
or
reason
priesthood,
prohibited
This
Basically,
in England.
Inhabitants
purpose
to
and
of
practical
were
of marriage
resided.
practice.
such
mode
original
persons
of Banns
announcement
A general
Publication
and
this
clandestine
the
two
parties
law
The
prevent
practice.
the
meaning
persons.
hands
of
influences
In medeival
the
and
term
to
minors. in
origin
ecclesiastical
Anglo-Saxon
by Publication
of
banns
REL
-
aT =). sit o% issih bal:e ~.
"
"
ne at “oned”
Saas
biow si .basiga® at sibel, Ssidinasastasl
oes
iif
& of obiduq sbem Shibata B to ramaonuoana gtanem ar193 noxe2-ol gn %
aid3 to notsudbaamt odd 10} woanet Lamtgtxe SAT iemoaveq o\xedmin 10 dente tite vd gegstrtem dalioo?
|
to ontdesbasls Jasverq oF saw sbom
x9dtem s yilodw s1ow eagstriem ,boslged sobuT basLeviebsa al .evontm wef Isottesteafoss agelrisw
ba begusvog stow bas ,boodsastyq sd2 to ebmed sia at
913 to nottestametoe
disidw ar sosiq
sat to Sasiaq
sit esaw sokijosiq Isresmeg A
fieitsg
laool
sda
.soksoa1q bas
yd amoR7sg ows Jo yaome1ss
-bables1 selizsq odd {softaslaalooe
10% ssequug
to sgbsiwod
sved
gidenetistes
oii mrolnt
Isoi2ostq
bivew datxeq
ot sub ytiosdss
of alds sd bleow bas
10 btov sgsitten sd% tebao1 mirl ovee
bluos
jk Jans
teddons bel opts 11 TO atmoteq
at taetiq
st
5 ovtse
eaned
to ajnstidedal
to Aoel
,.o39
-eottisq
to nolisolidud .sottoszq
°"
bas wal
io 998 es Howe 29982
,e9s1g9b betididorq edd atiskw
bluow dokdw tos? yne to testiq detisg
aid 10%
breugstse
s asw aldT
.sidsblov
.ystifun s eew dotdw egstrism s gotsinms foe ‘moi?
o4 gnimyew 10 solttoa oveg JE tedd ak seoqiuq
Ieotstosiq
notblinh steda isdj i052 sda 2% egsfiism 93 0d astiisgq sd3 to enatirtiting yiiausiogge m8 @sneiEg
9V5R
audi
bas
i;ynomiadam ommk tets9 o7 susdn ‘etd
.rottos slideitva redo soled ro sgstaiem sf? Jaavetq bos snsvrssntoF 368 V9%q od ensem s ts Jqmesis os cow enaed 39 wobtnations ells kant
eins, atedw ,vieisoe SeMibome rs at omgnirten apeGebrshé 70 vo i
re es
flebreq steda id
‘a
_
”
Gals alan. lees eltowsed 36 AD >
+29) ess ogeiram Istomtvorg blo aftada
finde
:
_
vt
140. as
an
alternative
Marriage banns.
Act
on
By custom,
this
hota
is
banns
that
as
area
of
two
at
with
least
the
Solemnization
point The
authorized
Columbia)
to
of
of publication
Act to
Columbia
of
the
present
parties so
one
is
of
concerned
perform
with
marriages.
provincial
must
give
that
the
publishing
of
during
enactments
has
to
the
of
solemnize
that
has
banns
holidays
to
authority
Deaths
and
for
file
have the to
the
place
and
audible given
must
be
the
been
then
duly
clergyman
the
of
the
who
he must
published, who
the
between
voice
proclaimed
clergyman
perform
of
in the
to
or worship
a certificate
Marriages
must
a minimum
is
the marriage,
banns
must
If
in
in an
Banns
provides
belongs
parties
service.
certificate
latter
clearly
regular
Act
service
resided
the
publication
marriage
clergyman
of worship.
other
parties
Births,
the
the The
the
divine
parties
religious
the
solemnize
marriage
or
going
the
to
for
licence.
be announced
place
the
is not
to
the
must
Sundays
during
Registrar
of
the
is
to which
intended in
provides
the marriage
group
Banns
a certificate
clergyman
(British
religious
banns
The
the
British
voice
publishes
marriage
the
in a loud
groups
the
of
on
The
practice.
persons
banns
consecutive
the
in
who
notice
and
is
clergyman
religious
give
silent
or
the
congregation
on
Act
of 8 days.
that
is
and
alternative
in which
period so
an
the
worship
licences.
aoe
a minister
proclaim
mode
a summary
The Marriage of
marriage
of marriages
following this
the
of Newfoundland
registration
The
to
solemnizes
ceremony.
of
publication
the
date
of
aL
(British)
Columbia)
The
Marriage
Act
RuS.B.C.
1960
Chap.
232
Sec.
9.
sOST
toabiaetaim lesont.
to cottnobtdug Yo antog ada no djiw beaxeone9 ef 390A an
anelt
aseumaaa
.esgetyiem mroYreq od fiostroftue enoexsq ednomtonss’ penne, ekdmuto9 Harakxa set om
a
a
er
notisotidug st to esbbverq (stdmufod debated) 39A sgsiuieM acts hta’ asbtverty 259A odT
.oomeck! ogsitian eft od svissatedis
ns 6 erinsdFo
tev sgsittam odd ssiowsloz of at offw memygysio+o toveimin& Jett to soniq sit of sotvise efivibh gaixub sit
at bos
agnoisd
mumitka
eotev adi
sia
ot nevig
as ot ylassIo et estiteg
doidw
aeerrgroto
teum sd todd
so evabblod alt iI
9d3
bsonuocos
.qinaicw
.sotvise
to omo sesol
sd Jeum enasi bobmegal
io sosiq
ralugst
anned ofs misflootg
of quo1g evotgiiey edd Yo qidetow
sf#2 to sxsiissm
ed teum enosi
to qifetow
ow
sis
5 tot siidiacn’s ead esitxsg
sidibuse
bemisilao1g
mamggiels
sstow byol oe
t910
sds
3s doldw at sexs
init to botisq to otiier taeda 08
93 mk Jnosaexq motisgetgn95
10 aysbaue ovidunsanco ows fo
auotaites
sid gaitwh equozg
avoigiles
,egsirxam 92 sstameloe o3 gntog Jon et ennsd esdatidug
.befetiduq ylub seed ovad eonsd taeda aotiiag eft of sfsoblisie2 5 svig
assitnopfoe odw mamegielo afd o3 ‘ageoktlaxss sit ovig aura aci3xeq
3 bas
.vaome7ao sd3 attotieg of ydizoravs asd iesas! oda taddos egetziem of3 norts.t deg fo einotitacas & elt? seum anted od acidaridug asmygislo odT
10 saab eld dawwded oanepitbine ouaebaah mee ada daw «2 , 992 ces porn a2.
bon stat uy
ue
‘Lf aa !
vb
hme
Ws
i ed
»
Cees
wes As >) teiA,“lead,
gti)
i
Me first
and
second
least
one
party
14 days
in
the (c)
publication.
to
church Other
The Oncaeier
This
provide where
neither
The
the
or
Marriage
marriage
a certificate
must (a)
as
be
for
requires
a minimum
banns
are
(alii
the
that
at
period
of
proclaimed.
form
to
be
be
as
must
the
least
three
described
of a dispensation marriage
as
and
from
banns
in British
provinces
do
They
are
useful
of value
for
the
not
institutions
purpose
of
provides
before
that
where
a marriage
the
parties
commissioner,
follows:
give
notice
commissioner
where
modes
os
performed.
marriage
obtained
proposed
would
two
Other
Columbia)
a civil
Marriage
for
eobee
the
of marriage.
(British
Parties
to
in Ontario.
banns
ceremony
desire
the
take
modes
nor
Act
in which
certificate
permit
a marriage
reside
alternative
may
a civil
licence
of marriage
should
of British
a third
alternative
mode
of Marriages
Provinces
special
such
enabling
to
or
district
alternative
in Manitoba
Columbia
marriage
Modes
provide
above. as
the
This
parties
days
in
of
the
intend
before
writing
to
the
to
the
district
be married
date
of
at
the
marriage.
gel
(British
Columbia)
jyNe Oa wale
The
Marriage
Act
RVS.B.C.
1960
Chap.
232
Sec.
as
amended
Sec.
4 & 26.
9,
13 (Manitoba) or
1970,
The See.
Marriage
Act
R.S.M.
1970
Chap.
M-50
3.
124 (Ontario)
The
Marriage
Act
R.S.0.
1960
Chap.
228
by 11
bn We Dei bedissesb
igi) detsrstysl
esbom
od sale tiet «
er
owd sedi o3 ovisanre2 fe butdd 5 sbivorg ASE Oras
enaed most cottsensqetb
& to mot
sy
sas? ysm avEtsnredta
atdT .evods
fetiix8 at as ogehasem 40% srsottpsxe. Iivts 8 10 sdostinsMmt es
ton ob esankvorg 9120 afoltutitent
[utesu
-oltsin0 mi es tineq [stosqe 10 stdmefod
ste eat
feotiestadtsse off}!ao¥?) 9% of bevistanezs |
esldebiov
|
boa biey asswied besabusq
| Le
coltomiterb Lsget Iatotttaas oT
io eenttostg ona dAdiw wal tommos sda to sonar tistat eda yd sgsirism
aeoneisitib sastxoqal smoe mt botlueen earl etavoo Isstiesteslooe sda seedt
.ytiltum
to Ieties
sds
animison0s wal nommoo
:woled besixsmue'oxs of edt
,oksini bis
figuows
ds brov bre Live et dokdw eto
,esnetelxs
oFAE
toow
otiw andaisq
ysvsr
smio yovs
at sgatrism
te. gotetxe
295097%932Eb
brov A (a) «I
sgetrrsm besimgooes Uisgel
to natiteoq
sd3 mt ots astitsq
-Lius © (1)
-ogpitzem to sonemt0 tteq te 9908 dine —; |
ia
wiek thine bhlavy s es bo 38am ia dottiw aco. ak sgelatem ptdattow A (d) > 023 asitimd
asl3 2198355 Poe to bavinciel
3399266 nletieo
dtiw
syad of duvos $d2 mor} astDeb s Asse oF tdgiy » sve egataxsm odd |
; y
tas)Ee the marriage marriage
set
exists
aside
as
being
invalid.
unless
it
is declared
The
status
non-existent
of
by judicial
degree.
(a) In a void marriage children), the
(b)
may
marriage
marriage,
petition
is
In a voidable
null
set
is
declaration given
(b)
only
through
from
in order
as
having
is
thus
come
into
a decree
affecting
the
is necessary
of
spouses
the
to
affix
stating
that
the the
spouses right
is not
legal
to
of nullity
from
a court.
to
be
sought
at
since
all
in order their
and
to
to
is
a positive
obligations
marriage
set
the
legally to
fact
from
act of
effect
aside
is
situation.
the
court
court
parties.
to
the
because
A
wish
of
the
defect.
(a) The that
effect
of
a declaration
the marriage
status, marriage
rights
or
were
ever
on
is a nullity obligations created
a void and
void
flowing
between
marriage
the
ab
from
is
initio,
simply
to
state
i.e.
that
no
a legally
parties
to
the
valid void
marriage.
(b)
The
effect
of
a decree
of nullity
for
a voidable
a
recognized
by the
the
obtain
and
legally
relief
legal
no
have
the
is available
proper
grant
from
necessary
a marriage
i.e.,
the
seek
imprimatur
The
to
to
However,
situation,
rights
have
a declaration
A declaration
nullity,
status,
or
relief
existence.
of
decree
it
court.
marriage
parties
a decree
of nullity.
to
third
only have
proper
exists,
the
for
situation,
the
(spouse,
void.
aside
marriage
In a voidable
court
lifetime,
a declaration
recognized
anyone
their
(a) For a void marriage, court
the
and
marriage
during
the marriage
situation,
marriage
is
to
ted azah hansaiienenl a ol d1woo off) mots
|
|
idee
how tee ed
steoabtits
em od7 sm
ett of agevoge edd yao cobjandte ajabiee |sidabtov Tea tains y=
:
eved o5 deez o3 anyts of% eved .ombsoRkl thedd gotiub ,sanistiem
.Jmv02 8 mont Yitllot Yo seteed 2 fgvowd’ abies Yee sestxrem oft
7
§/
af3 most siguea sd oF telio1 teqorq sid \syabarem btov s x0% (8) €
viisgel of sdmte (Yevewell
.y7litue Yo qobdezalosb® at axon!
bostagoses ¥liegeal at syakyyse « .colisutte epskarem’sldebtov es al (d) trveo aff mott Isiier
rsqesq siT
.sonsteixs osmk amo’ gnivedes
jteoD sit vd doo evidbeoq 6 ,.8.t A
ieektang 93
to scotdegiido
,v3iIhun Yo estoeb s emit at
brs aidgin sautes2 oft gotsostis
Hetw sila 04 19020 Ingel t81g 02 t9b30 mk yraensosaak esmneb|
wits te Wbdisid adtak aee deitntin todt esas Lo)
her > waoeReb,
93538 03 ylqmke at ageta 1am biov 6 ao notdszafosb s taste Io
on Jada,i sian
orn een
bpinv yilegel © mox? gntwolt meee SR
oe
a
ey eae Ae
i
" (ye
ier
te
change
the
those
of
of
the
status
rights
spouses
to
so-called
and
those
obligations
of unmarried
marriage
(and
not
of
the
parties
persons
merely
as
from
from
from
the
the
date
date
of
the
decree).
(a) The difference no
longer
important
provincial void
and
in effect
(a) A declaration it
is
purely
according those
of nullity a judicial
beyond
nullity
a judgment
of
within
necessarily
act
rights
the
the parties inter persons
is
both
and
of
(a) In a void marriage
of
now
is have
children
it
the the
It
court
of
the
by the
of
of
also
in rem and in
the
judiciary
but
the
exists by
internationally
a judgment
sense
two
also
by other
is
persons.
It
within only
upon It
it
the
not
court.
that
in
altering
by those
is binding
the court
fact
that
is recognized
and
between
it
sense
court.
is recognized
i.e.,
in the
fact.
internationally
all
is
the
between
other
is not
persons
beyond
court. woman
the
domicile
of marriage
and
she
is
when
she
lives
period
status
in rem
in personam
jurisdiction
retains
the
children
in Canada
certain
a judgment
court,
recognized
jurisdiction
of
that
the
obligations
se before
the
of
exercised
in remin that
jurisdiction
that
jurisdiction
a judgment
administrative
status,
governing
the
is
legitimate
stating
jurisdiction
legal
She
act
the
It
provinces
is a judgment
within
of
legitimacy
marriages.
law
personam.
the
the
the
A decree
an
saving
most
to
by others
(b)
regards
because
statutes
voidable
as
never
which
capable with
she of
acquires
had
prior
changing
the man
the
to
her
under
status
the
sham
domicile
a false
of
a wife.
form throughout
notion
that
moti astaxey ods Yo anolsagtido 936b oY wot? en anonteq belrzamy 46 4 sdi Yo steb 92 wort ylerem ao bas)
irae | ya
moat ta i ‘i
ek csrbLids to yoamitigo! ebrages en dowtie mt sonexe¥i1bsat ioei sve wor sbans) ct asonkverq Jeom seussed dasdtoqmt segaot \éa
to merbiido to avtase stemtiigel ad3 gatvas eatuteye ttontvorg ©
,sogatrzam@ eidabtov hus blow
=
jad? sansa sid nl mst BE anemabut s et yabituc Yo notss1afosb A (es) .d edetx
jos? ofe2ta9
vd besingoooy
yLlsooliensstat
af tf
dad} gmiicte jos Latokbut s eieag .4tpat
et 9k
) |
b
tendo gitnreveg wal ails 62 gatbion9s
ovis bas t1veo ed? to noijokbatsw ods midstw seodt -Ituo9 944 to nottoibetwwt sdj
i
Baoyed ezed3zo a
nk Insagsut s bos mox gt tdemgbut » dtd at yatilum to ss1osb A (d) af 3k tad? sansa ait guivetis af 31
neswisd
ows
ssodd
yine
smemoeteg
ytetothyt ada yd boelorexs Jos eviserjetnaimbs as
.anbeteq
adj widéiw
offs at marton41sq nt tneagbut 8 ef 31
asswisd
enotisgiido
vd hestmgeose
@F 45 tea mt mex ob Joemgbut
ton gatbatd at af y.e.t
vedso Lis noqy coals dud —
jon at 31
bas eight , evista Lagel
visage sia to aotsotbatqt
a |
siz axoled oe s93at wstsieq odd
.i4yo> sit to sotsobbabswt ed3 abddiw anoexeq
a2
bnoyed savaxog xad20 yd vLenokseuredah besingooey yibzaeeszen | | » ' | «fre Ae a Pant oliw tq eudeie eds asztupos raven mamow ondoasiriam biov # atoo
suotgyosta sftsteob sodgatgmdo Yoafdngao atadote Renee am wee fe WA :
'
LDioe she
(b)
is married
to him.
In a voidable
Her
domicile
loses from
the her
right
to
husband
of
as
court.
for
the
other
a change
This
difference
of
not
a defence
the
court
or
of
insincerity.
to
The
relationship
such
delay
laches
the
or
defence
a marriage a ground
of
void for
She
independently
is not
decreed as
a nullity
regards
the
parties
are
not
available
such fact
as
that
within
such are
the
between
thus
judicially
explained
as
when
the
a decree
one
prohibited
"A void
marriage
by every
court
SL eALT Re
56.
of
a
and
spouse
insincerity
void
knew
of
degrees
is
in
those
by Lord
voidable
Green,
void
is one
in any
the
that will
case
marriage
in
also
ab
be regarded the as
in
the
where
initio. has
in De Reneville
issue
be
provinces
marriage
in which is
and
should
is available
a marriage and
It
20
existence
to
knowledge
available.
impotence
declaring
distinction
[29457
husband.
important
acquiescence
for
This
Reneville:
the
of a wife.
a petition.
acquiescence,
is
of
status
over
nullity,
defences
there
is
defences
marriage
of
that
the marriage
In a voidable
case
the
of domicile
as
certain
spouse's
that
to
long
declaration
acquiescence,
noted
acquires
is sought.
(a) In a void marriage petition
woman
changes
effect
jurisdiction
of nullity
(b)
the
on marriage
by a proper issue
marriage
been
v.
De
via
8 beora8b Jon at sgatirea ota @B goo! an
ue vt tod most
o? ye
|1 ay
rsqorg gt sonese22th ataT Rive Sakai pier’& we
anit & ae | as trea 18 te
| 99199b 8 mow estitsq of3 x90 ttu09 ora 20 aoksotbatwut to aueer
|
} ' .
ilguoeghwoRttun 20
s oj oidsitave tom 94a esonetsbh aisites egalizem bkov 6 al (s) 8
to wami
tal to sotisisiosb
aahbolwonod oie AMA aah
bas
savoqe
eit soatgeb
ano
sot setsiieg
“Vittsonteat 10 e SAEEDER DES
tosd3 toast silT
sda obAdtiw qidenotisiex fenced caiis sda
baxtdidor
-Mottiisq s dowe of aaah bas viiasoctent
sia
mt oale
to valet lagen Pid
915 aedosl
to oonsisb ods aadd bean
el someoestupon
sldsltave
2oonivotq
exodw
es dove SL sitele sgsliiam oldsbiov s wl (d)
ekdeltevs
od biyorle oT
5 08
suodd atk sometogmi
tot blov pore
8 to werd
-ottint: de blov sgaitzrem s gnitaloob x03 intwotg B et oxad2 aged asd ogeisiem aldabrov brie biov meawited i eaders otpated eldT wi
2a .¥ mone
|
i
” _ teitivensh Jigar
|
_ bebisges ed IfLtw ted eno ek sgaikriam blov A"
oft dotdw ak sean vie ab tiv0o
a
3
_
rN 119920 bso.1 xd bomkelqne “ato tbutuna os.
Ot
.
as sueel at et aes “7 to ‘x
ral ag
a
al
y
9
ry
ein oP Nee Beis Fe e ial @ a
! an
ie ihe a
re" eT
Eng
Peer
es :
:
by
,
BSS s never having taken place and can be so treated by both parties to it without the necessity of any decree annuling it; a voidable marriage is one that will be regarded as a valid subsisting marriage until a decree annulling it has been pronounced by a court of competent Surisdiction;..... The fact that in both cases the form of the decree is the same cannot alter the fact that the two cases
are [C]
GROUNDS (i)
ON WHICH
Invalid
(a)
customary of
the
not
the
Hindu
marriage
and
it must
customary
as
under
what
Neen rites
the
which
form the
to
and
old
of
rites
not
at
one and
to
to
ceremonies
form
recognized
the
the
the
of
the
any
form
validity
marriage
except
has
law
of
Hindu
Marriage
Act
of
the
at
is
with
parties.
a the
Non-observance
least
marriage.
essential
one
of
the
A marriage
ceremonies
of marriage
1955,
and
or
a form
Section
place.
by custom which
/.
but
therefore
a marriage
taken
wah The
two
solemnize
Act
in accordance
ceremonies
of marriage
by Hindu
belong)
of
by the
is,
all.
refer
for
contemplated
solemnized
by performance
law,
parties
be
failure
no marriage does
Marriage
ceremonies
customary
solemnized
particular
in any
and
amount
the Act, The
of Marriage
India,
rites
quite different."
IS VOID
Law
would
duly
under
Ceremony
essential
parties
MARRIAGE
Hindu
In ceremonial
in this respect
has
it The
only under
is
the
this
Act,
immaterial
marriage
(whatever become
to
the
in
may
be
caste
to
obsolete
or
is
alee esd 2: gailluons setssb
6 I
-$eetsqmos Io Jwos 8 yd bad dtod
mt
teri?
3982
sit
ee
ewe
whee
Lat
omee off at seta9b a3 to mot efa
D
eeee> ows sid ters 3582 ort tetle ‘donnss " sagxe22ib sttup joeqaex atid nt sts
'
|
a
~
wed ubatt (a) e et toA adi yd betelqmegaoo edi
diiw sonabtos28
sonsvieedo-noMl efi
to sno
egetzzem
.eetisveq tassel
A
ogsttisM ubalt of3 ,eitbal al, .
af besinmsloa
ow? add
od Jteum at bos eagetizam Lainomstss
to ono
38 to astaomezes
to estnomexeo
bas
.sgetxyzem sda ssinmstoa
asiia
bas astiz
yismoseuo
o3 etuliet
yrsmoseuD
istineeas
ot Jovoms
blyow
sda to selizeg
.3t askaomaxso Iekimeaes ad lo sonamyo}xeq yd bastnmmloe yiub Jon
[ls ts sgettxem of ,20A ed sebaw 63
of vino
190A @bdt
tud sgeiesism 1o mod
tobny etotosedt
at fsitvetemmk
ef i
yoe oF r9tsT Jon Boob ery sdT
bas sgettrem
lo estnometes base asdis yasmoseus,
sasitrem & to vitbiisv et tot wet blo oft rer 85
ed yao sgskaxem edT a3 e3ep9 eid tevederdw)
.so8lq asdet asd ogatzrem ond mio? wiyoljiasq 3erdw mo3auS yd 10 wal eae yd beskngosex myoi yas ok.
at 19 s4sfoado omonsd anil foidw arrol 6 dqeoxs Tea astixsq oft dotdw >
Mm"
ae
ide
_—mas
Prin
AN mottos@ ,22@L dod egetazeM wbnitl eft +h 7's
°
154. not
recognized
on
grounds
custom
is "transcendent
in
matter
the
any
party
of
that
been
performed.
it
the
upon
The
particular
locality
reasonable
and
beyond
usage
makes
the the
the
law
not
of
and
must,
of one
of
be a valid
of any
to public of
be
policy.
reasoning
reason
sub-caste
it must
of
since
the
it
a Hindu
ceremonies
course,
any
age
As
by the Hindu
validity
a family
the
recognized
establish
opposed
not
against
ceremonies,
a custom of
is
marriage
rites
or or
or
the
by parity
and
of
custom
custom
policy
law'' and expressly
customary
is a caste
public
performance
called
show
of
of
or
is
marriage
the
custom.
of a
certain
and
be enlarged
it
usage
the
had
Whether
It cannot is
to
to
spouses
a custom
ancient,
open
law
that
aoe
ChymCanadianwlaw
In ments
Canada
relating
to
whether
the
marriage
be determined
‘by reference
is
in England,
solemnized
down
in
public
the
marriage
policy
the
technical
defect,
English
of
law
public
act
requires
observed,
however
effected
policy
to
to
comply
ceremony
will
with make
the
formal
is not
that
will
these
every render
the
formalities
of avoiding slight,
defect
would
a compromise
with
the
result
that
“Hindu
Law
of Marriage",
in
the
ceremony should
formalities a nullity.
be
where
be
socially
even
some
formal
there more
Gupte,
(Bombay)
conflicting
defects
(1961)
23
Mulla,
“Hindu
Law"
(Bombay)
(13 ed.
1966)
at
639.
laid Whilst
at
was
some
undesirable.
will
De
S.V«
must
strictly
marriage
these
void
If the marriage
any
between
require-
the marriage
the lex loci ‘celebrationis.
it
that
consequences
has
failure
124.
demands
not
rr. aA
wal
yaw tankegs etx0yoLtog: 2
wal ibe aie Ge benetigeeioen” schwag’ i; a AYO, 7 D oF feqo et St ,estndato te. getraam ottTo soauarretieg 20x932em 9d3 me ; oso
ee
uty
'
o2 sgeirise ubatl s lo vitbilsy detidedas ia neque beilso yareq ys e+/_l
cal 29
’
_
biley sd
2e8rw0o to jcabeicacutlls SdT
.bemrrotysq need
§ to modeus
& Yo staso-dye yas to soters ¢ 30 mozeu2 Stans ® et at
bue oisi1es
,jnotons
begreine tadt
od jonas
ogeeu
odd
sd seum
ST
mn ‘tinea B 2o to yttisool
saa 7s i
nentiteg otiduq of bescgge ton brs sldsnoesst
et Jk somtea
gninoasex
BS gaits oly
to ythraq
—
yd Speeu edz bnoysd
to qogsey elo Jon bes wal odd estam
wad setheasd @ ~sifupst
L[amrot
oda daiw
yvyigmos
o4
sivifted
sadam
tans
si
| 1
teum
biov
egsiiiem
sxsttism
sit
il
sit
salam
bea Ynomar
—e
ae’,We
edd o3
2
Vii | BM
-dosteb ‘Taokeses
salmorgmas & tetnetie asd wal dante ]
vy
Jon ILiw etosisab [sorrot? smoz jeilt sibaws add daw yorlog otiduq to pq eal aA oh . Tl :
ASE js
(f6@1)
os
Haditoa)Bia e
.
133% render
will
the
the
marriage
be void
only
defect.
void
if both
In other
innocently
to
at
all,
parties
words,
contract
whilst
in
the
contracted
it is
a marriage
of
it with
impossible which
case
for
is void
the
the
rest,
knowledge
a person
because
marriage
of
in England
of
the
formal
aeeceee
The
law
mentions
is
that
vention
or
the
same
a marriage
that
Various
Act.
prior
the
to
matter
of
person
who
issued
licence
licence
this
or
for
may,
if
satisfied
lawfully
it
solemnized
is proper
to
do
notwithstanding
so, any
declare such
non-compliance.
Of
v.
the
marriage,
marriage,
was
these
litigation
would
charges,
or
of a contra-
Act:
(b) by the
Court
specifically
only
the
relating
of
would
the
the not
ZC:
person
set
a similar
held
that
the
of
Alberta
a licence
had
been
statute
although
the
validity
in
that
ceremony
performing the
are
demanding
where
it was
affect
form
marriage
in Ontario,
Alspector
expose
to
requirements
celebration
In Alspector
the
by reason
solemnized
requirements
Marriage
invalidated
foe
who
marriage
contravention
Marriage
person
Supreme
the
with
The
by the
the
the
is not
non-compliance (a)
and
in Canada.
ceremony
is
be
the
subject
in
effect.
absence to
the marriage
"Family
Law'',
(Butterworth)
2
Reo.AetO7Lb, Chapter 26
[1957]
O.R.
454.
226,
Sec.
123.
(2nd
ed.
-
1962)
at
of
a
criminal so
2a Bromley,
obtained
66.
‘ba
re
Prepgey ve
ate ale
‘yes
*S caseaab :
rer agetsteM oAT abled nt ‘dina at wat sare
-etit0o @ Io Yino doased yd bessbttevnt jon ek ogeltzem 2 Jai? thst
139A oft “itiw ‘gone il qmo3=non to notinev vo ,Sgeivyem af% basteasion
odw'adetsq
et? yd (es)
yo%t sortesti oft Loveet ow aoereq sft qd (d)
sheng
er
stslvab
,oe ob oF teqomq ef 3k botletise
Ut ~xam JwoeD smetque sid bn
dove Yas gai bie rads iene bor frum [oe viluiwel asv apr Bem sixedléA ers
bonterde ad snesok! tostdua add aeed
add jead3
Deer ay 9aa) 11Em eft io aolraxdelas ada ot rolxg
Jogtie mi af otndede selkahe pstedw ,ot1sin0 mk aoktegtit Fo x9I38m a Yo soneade davoniis teda bled esw tt Lsatmts
0S odosaelAa .v gojoggelA al
od erone uss efit aniwiol1%¢q soetsq sd3 sa0gxe bluow sonsott
oagntzian oft Yor goubtew i,290328, sombluow tds seve
.
Meae celebrated, in
its
to
a valid
where
validity.
the
parties
The
Act
marriage.
enter
does
Justice
"There
are
upon
not
make
McIver
the
ceremony
a licence
in good
condition
faith
precedent
said:
no penalties
attached
on
those
who enter into the marriage contract under such circumstances and I have not been able to find a case that holds that the issue of the licence is an integral essential to the validity of the marriage where there is no express statutory provision rendering the marriage void in
its absence."'27 (ii)
Non-Age (a) In
recent
times,
attainment
detriment
of
of
Hindu India,
Law the
upon
puberty,
a practice
the
Dharma
Vedic
literature
parties.
Sastraic
;
;
the
given
period
away
in general
unmindful
the
the
of
Sutras
of her
the
she was
that
ae
and
a mere
should
Vedic
limit
in
of
;
it was
trend
castes
girl
have,
adult
case
of
er
enjoined
out
But
girls
the
The
in some
dwindled a girl
further
the
that
for
:
that
to
marriages.
(a girl of tender
received
even
ceremonies
; parties.
the
the
to
be pointed
of
until
before
adhered
marriage
the
'nagnika'
This
been
in favour
adulthood
age
nudity).
the
all
their
has
it
lean
and
of
away
However,
reason
when
marrying
materials
, 28 particular presuppose
in
Hindus
insisted
early
unaccountable
orthodox
down
should
years
who
commendation
a1.
See also G.M. Keyes: "The Validity Ontario”) Oseoode Hall 1. Rev. 58.
of
the
Common
Law Marriage
28 Kane:
W
History
of Dharma
Sastra"
[1941]
Vol.
2, 439
& 526.
29 Approximately
from
the
8th
Century
B.C.
to
the
3rd
Century
B.C.
in
be
is in
I bas esonstemuotio dove jedd
Sadi? Sen2 6 =
tobm.
lpaids:
preteen ae et sonsotl ods
ahi?
fakta eas i+ tnit siz to y3ibiisw eda ee v biav az hRa
ee te r orld gots ogeftsem
ty
oe,if
Eee “
Praia
cay
ws
spAenoK
tijau
,evad
gegans
ait sroted eft
o3 nave
sd3
sit
Ie evbnth
[xix ae
of bersdbe
tsd3 tuo
[fe
(1r)
xoborntso odd estbal ol
qsed
ead
jaz
9otjostg
3! , revewol
2 eeisduq
to ‘aennted3e
eadelieen sd3 to jeabaaite
.aegstrxem djiubs Yo toOvet ni asel alsiiejem gieyigs? suid
gmoe vot tua
ey
{ews ganertea moqu badstent goats ators
bstntog ed blaora
nt egittometso
|
A
ylise
Sgkrx'tea sibeV edt bis [avsteg ot ssuteregtt otBev
-eokaraq 6f3 to boorsiubs sds seoqquestq 85 Styoteebg
awob bslbntwh alrkg Yo s@ay of9 nt ttott sya of9 movasd sldednuosseny ad bivorie Ixtg 5 tadt heakOtns esw 3k bos 28 nage aa to botzeq Sf3 nt
at ow @issy tsbast to iphdig’ a) ‘pAlegsa’ o1sm 6 esw ode hodw yaws novtg nt notasbmemmos roljxiut bevisest baezs etd?
12.8 erwseebat sf? of 2.8 wie ;
:
.
A ?
.(ydbboa west to ube
oda
HRD74s the
hands
was
transformed
dispose
of er
of
extent
into
his
of
his
before
followers
a religious
daughter
laying
daughter
and
down
before
that
puberty,
if
and
duty
her the
he will
on
what
the
part
puberty. father
began
of
as
a preference
the
father
to
goes
to
ea meee
fails
to marry
be committing
the
sin
away
of
the
his
"killing
an
embryo". Modern of
child
India
marriage
Geneuees
e the
enactment. years
has
Act,
for
the
bride
penalties
for
the
significantly, solemnized application such
while
and
Restraint
laying
eighteen
contravention not
attempts
down
years
of
the
interfere
contravention
to
the marriageable
Marriage
it does
in
repeated
by raising
Child
This
made
the
factum
the
doctrine
of
marriages
has
rendered
the
IX,
89 -
Act
the for
the
under
1929,
age
the
provisions
an
age
vanes?
the
being
the
the
validity of
the
to
uphold
innocuous
also
Were
fifteen provides
But
of a marriage
eee
piece
general
namely,
bridegroom,
of
practice
various
limits,
provisions
with
of
of
Act,
eradicate
The
the of
validity
legislation.
30 Manu's
Code
94.
ar Yajnavalkya's
Code
I, 52.
32 Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872, Section 60. Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, Section 2. Special Marriage Act 1954, Section 4. Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Section 5.
a3
The
Hindu
Marriage
Act,
Section
3 -
6.
34 Munshiram
vy.
Emperor,
A.L:R.
(1936)
Ale
11512.
55 Where an act is done and finally completed, though it may contravention of a hundred texts, the fact will stand and will be deemed to be legal and binding.
be in the act
of
sa se
agen
abd yews yrrem 09 afte pike o2 2 |
.
|
f8 gnti ita” to mito end gakddimmos od Lliw od « M
sokioeig
ofa
stsotbs1
avottey iaqenss msttii wabivoyg
sua
}
oefs
f i
288%
,eitotl
,I5A intssseo!
,mootgsbtsd
sda yo? a1say
sghisviem 6 to yibbtisv
‘de yirbiinv mokteletys!
ne -JoA
sii
ot
.
Movrdns
1 hanes aan
sgetazeM iid bl
996 eda awob gakyel
©, 588 003 30 atohakvorq st
ant
‘
q s10%ed arakadssvit ;
02 ilar falbossogos abeaeedpre mxsbol
ishru 9e8 stuadsdeerte a
odd gaied ,viomsaa
vi
elidw
bitda %o
7
aie *© esgoinis
.3oA aldT
messigts hein sbted et
.inomtoens sol etsoy
to aoktmavetinoo sdj t0% estiisasg
sf¥ diiw exetasint
Yo amo betvoxq
sii
30m asob 32 vlinsoitingte
to mokinsvatinan
ak lonbeneice
od blodqu oF CE satay v mujos? to smtrisob sas to, aotssotlqqe to soekq
auansemnk ne toA of3 betsbaes ead sogetatem dove pee 4
,
“OF
92 ~ 08 .XI shod a'uasM +82 .I sbod: a’ nemiawna tse He
08 hobtsa® >\8L ana egatrasM astietsdd ans el i os notsaae %)Ke ie
718M oor
rich tik
4
e sel pie opal 3oA operant at ie =
ui ”
€ootsaue «20hegmtaiat stotat 7
st ta(ba)bales ce
fers
p ae
Ilbe
as ena Kael a 0 ie
-——
eh
eek)
Te
oF
;
:
(b)
Canadian
In Canada, exists
At
for
where
common
one
law
36
females.
the
marriage
there
is
of
an
intra
vires
absence
of
of
either
a licence
since
a provincial
stipulated
formal
or
conditional
invalidity,
as
relating
capacity
an
; alternative
of
the
marriage
of
an
the
to
or
that
males
illegitimacy
the
solemnization
age,
‘
a marriage will
of
off-
of
a
usually
F
solemnized
not
be
invalid
effect
or
the
Such
12
; certain
under
a certain
age.
and
the
that
end.
required
14 for
except
marriage
to
the
marriage
a provision
16
in unless
statute will
be
may
competently
attach
preliminaries
the
consequence
of
will
interpreted
the
(a subject
infant
or
a valid
legislature
and
! ; interpretation
:
issued
of
was
is under
provision
intention
not
prevent
to marry
been
statutory
a clear
to
parties
has
are
into
sacs prohibit,
statutes
the
enter
to marriage
necessary
of
to
parties
a prohibition,
express
to
the
consent
a licence
such
demonstrates
of
of
where
issuing
Where
violation
age
as
when
a7
years.
both
incapacity
eae, Provincial
circumstances, spring,
legal
or
the
Law
can over
prohibition beyond
provincial
reasonably seven
not
years
but
38
below
In the
where
the
case
age
36 Repeeve Kerr, (Ont.) (1984) 2 Deleies oOo Hobson v.. Gray (Alt.) [1958] 25 W.W.R..82.
37 (Alta.) The Solemnization of Marriage Act, R.S.A. 1970 Chap. 226, Sec. 026. (b.0.)) tne Marriage Act, Reped.C. J900, Che wo2.5ccec. 30. (Ans) sine Marriage Act, R.S.Moj) 1954 Ch. 154. sec. 22. (Ont, ) lhe Matraage-Act;-R+v5.07 1960- Cheeze, Sec. 8° (14° years). (Sake) inegiarriagpe Act, Reovo. LO5oeGn. 302.) 5ee. 31) Cl5 years).
38 Wobpey.
Wott,
194 App,
Div.
33.
the
absolute
competence)
be assumed. old
be
to
of
= Pet P¥
4
hy
>
ogaty sai Siler s oamt 29385,03 qioll .9g6 betivpst afi Yo Jon J18
SI bas selem 201 $f e&w cn
a
aD A a. eel92———7
| ea bal Hacldihe nal abedwe> yvebuu 2q99x9 11diabiey testi a is
‘
—tto
al aan
dostts
s3uloads
aiedw sas
ylanoisqmoo
70 sas of}
mod gent sonssil » exsdW
|
“ewey
PE
Istonivorqs Ssonts eoxty arial ;
aft astrsctmiiexq
[etonivorq
Lamtot
betsluqtte to sonsads
saz bos , vitbhievnt itesiiathaacae
iud
bio
erssy
névee
xevo
Jnsini
as
eviisoxesis
fe to sgetiism arts 20.
viele = 6
.28€ .#.ted & [AECL] ¢.2a0)
,aSS .gedd OTOL .A.2.8 .29A oun «ns2@
~SEtS
ma: #8) «
a
Gwe
ae
(xtoN
fl wae @S [82eL}*(.afA): \ bere
OE
i
broysd dostdves) yatonqa> od gntsslex es
vincatn s od vidsneese2 aso nolssserqussal
wolsed
.
daa
oui
Re
|
0% sotsoetal 1s9lo 5 estsztenomeb
yam 5i1tehakgol
{ibw moftakdidosq
sd io
(sone35qmo9
ofid al
brs dst
& douse
to ssnoupseno9
hejesqieiat
A to gniveet ada cantaay
Isis oF notekvotg ‘viotutste eroiqxs ond
t99tis
to
aft
od {Liw notaivoera of
:
sd ton Lliw sgsiatam sf% ymottidiforg s fous to sobaaioky
aesinu bifevat Stuissa
s 1x0 bewael
sysitism
bastamsfoz
at
.
+
6 zabnit‘et ‘anksehy sti “to saddio aeodw amd
esge missrsS
OL yvilavev
s
ie ‘osoita eB jeenitsbe:
lo yvosemisigsl{t sdi- ‘desvaaq o2 pe
8 Yo foksextamsioe-sid to al
sf2
a
ss 98 Atk . c df) 8 282 ,oSs a) 22) LE .o92 SOC .1d
[aa
ft se ys
;
RE
Renee! wae -
7 Bie co 220k 9
i
tat 3.8)
|
oJ legal
consent
absolutely
it
void
(iii)
within
general
but
Law
Hindu’ India,
and
good
law
prohibited
by
the
by the
customary
length
in
in
such
the
: 40 conscience. degrees
so
law,
of
the
purposes delay
cases
(b)
thus of
law
of
as
i.e.
unless
taking
In Canada,
or
the
and
word it
It the
the
is
of
have
of
has
’ laid
to
null
and
persons
say
personal
any
mean
the
degrees
prohibited
at
here
that
is null
custom affect void.
and
and the
of
the
essential
requisites
usage decision
42
of a valid
39 Hobson
v.
Gray
[1958]
25 W.W.R.
82.
40 Manchanda: ‘The 1969) at 229.
Law
and
Practice
of Divorce”
4l Lopez
v.
Lopez
[1886]
12 Cal.
MibiseveiMilis
{1901]
5 sofios gnkisi ni yeleb yas oa bas
sd2 op eens. ia at “* prov bas Plum obaint ds at sgatazem wel apibsaed (J) biisy 6 io ee
-
—Tt “Istinsees eds to sno
At
7
Davee
160. marriage
is
prohibited out,
that
the
parties
thereto
degrees
of
consanguinity
consanguinity
is
relationship
by marriage.
Prior
to
the
has
to
in
force
been
held
a marriage
between
consanguinity
that
such
or
purposes
AEC
sis ii pores the
were
Prior
In
the
Such
a person
what
part
of
In those
Existing
of
earlier is
hee
law
the
prohibited
one?
but
null
that
statute
void
where
to
therein
British
subjects,
Marriage
or
under
whose
laws
that
of enacted
all
Lord
will
country
was
degrees
thereby
and
which
(in England)
and
jurisdictions
pointed
relationship
Lyndhurst's
the
the
intents
Lyndhurst's
be held
invalid
even
it was
though
valid.
Bigamy
Law if
a second
a former
commits
the
within
invalidated
in a foreign
India,
life
within
As
affinity
Lord
"absolutely
domiciled
@) eo hindw
during
be
a marriage
celebrated (iv)
shall
of
voidable
be related
affinity.
in ipeeee
was
not
by blood;
related
whatsoever.'’
parties
it was
affinity
and
enactment
persons
a marriage
and
if
be
shall
the
world
marriage
wife
crime
or of
the
second
Act,
1835,
is
husband,
entered
into
it will
be null
bigamy,
and
it does
marriage
was
contracted.
by a person,
not
and
void.
matter 4
:
The
43 (Ene. ) The
Marriage
5 & 6 Wa.
JV,
2 W.W.R.
645.
Gh.
54.
44 In
re
Seidler
and
Mackie
[1929]
45 Elliot
and
Sugden
v.
Gurr
[1812]
161
E.R.
1064.
45A Alberta,
Manitoba
and
Ontario.
46 Brook v. Brook [1861] 11 E.R. 703; (Marriage and his deceased wife's sister, both persons England).
47 Miles
v.
Chilton
[1866]
2 Rob.
Eecl.
684.
in Denmark of a man being domiciled in
in
-085 ala attidtw be2etox 9H, JonIisie ©
bosnteg x92lzs9 sh .ygtoi}2e bee glebugn qtdenolisfex ehieitaitty :tootd vt 1ttanok ;
doxtw Jed
i 93 03 0
4oA a’ yerusbayd hrot %o jnsano
esw (basi gn’ at) wel sd
|
:
vogetrtsm ed
PYecaia araanlets, od bled aged en
Yo assigsb betidt#oxg of3 nisatw bstbo% Bnoersq nsswied sgsiziem6 botogns siutssea tedp oud ae tee 4 debroy aaw NITRIRG so ytimtvansanos usosint
Lis of Stet bare ILon eFotuleate” ed [fsde spetttem sw dove Jerid
e'sSexdbayl
bro! sxedw enobyoibetawt
Seog
biisvat bied sd fitw ydereds botebrlavat dauodt mave oF
deus
,atostdie dekdbxd bre nisisdt
asw It ewsl seodw isbeo
vtinuoo
al
" stsvocetsdw eseoqiuq bas
sypsharsm s ACP oz0% at et JoA baltoimeb si1ew astiisq sid 32 | agié10? s al Bstardelss
esw 3k |
(vt)
way ubats (5) ,noexsq -btov
s yd Otat
bas Llun
ni a9tdem onT
ton
boreims
sd [fiw
esob
et sgaizysm
sf ,basdeuri
3k bus
‘? hesbbyoine
& 2k pethbak pl.
|
:
10 stiw zwemret # Po s#tf sd3. gotiub
,ymegid
esw ogsizism
AG 1D QVI cB
bnoose
to omit brovse
ofa edkmmeg sda
bitew ef
vated6. dove to txeq tadw
2 2 .2C8 ,t9A egetazeM oT (.g0%) pie
268
.2.W.W S [OSOl}
st
2®
s1 al "i
UK oyie presumption for
seven
who
marries
guilty
other
of
law
years
of
bigamy.
order
existence,
but
previous
to
ground
and
of
commits
who
heard
under an
has of
such
been
continuously
is dead.
circumstances
honest
is dead
that
not
it was one
that
legal the
and
would
bona
be
initio,
a marriage
to
treat
: this
Law
The
Canadian
law
no
by going
absent
Therefore
a person
cannot
held
be
fide
belief
that
a good
answer
to
the
the
if his
seven
wife
years
or
and
on
former
marriage.
as
Thus,
be
be
eslolson
[1689)
is
the
same
a form
grounds
her
Hindu
she
law.
of marriage
believes
husband
he or
as
has
is not
his
Divoree,
Hudson
v.
Act.
2:0.58.D.
been
of
living,
innocent
on
(Act
IV.of
proved
1937
Mad.
1869).Sec..19 565.
Although
or
or her
continuously
to
166.
50
Webster,
the
in
time
contract
if he
wife
49 Indian,
still
the
14049 aside
set
the
spouse
to
and
is
at
a
open
48 Roy
if
had
a nullity
cannot
ground
marriage
thereto
it would it
this
a fresh the
marriage.
through
reasonable
the
, marriage
subsequent invalid
nullity
spouses
ab
Canadian.
or
a of
(b)
on
only
for
void
bigamy
past
a decree
prove,
previous
and
be dead
obtain
being
such
J marriage
the
been
marriage
marriage
marriage
faith
time,
the
to
must
party
not
Similarly,
to
petitioner
such
has
a person
of Miganes
In
the
and
that
a second
partner
charge
is
(4).
have
she
no
one
in good
husband
absent
known
that
to
for
his
7
|
er)
tnaeds yJeuountines need 2d ofiy aoexeq 8
aoessq & s10ToxaifT stoi ‘YoBroadihe all il lara ‘iat6d.dearth saoussenioxty dodo aap oak ba0390 soba oie oft tots Ystisd abi snod pas desrod me ,yivaltmke seangtd Io! Lvs ore
af3 oF Tewans Boog & sd bluow baob et a
sid at [fite
38 th
lo emis
sd3
esnivil
savoge
jneoonnk dest?
ea
isd
od3
escuoge
ogstt+se
sblee tee sd tonns>
ai
Jeum Jud
Jadi
al
racks tame sonedeixe
ote} tres auatvexq “ts
Yo sme
ds biov gated sgstitsm
dove
o3 sgetiism Bs dows o3 vo38q
Ji ised
& ee
bos yiiiiun
ona
.Syoxq
jom
8 asw
,oltint
31
od bfyow
yino
isgst
vagatysem
,.eiuiT
oF asqo
aid
remot
6 bed otowedi
s 3osyiaoo
afj-no0
10} 9sa99b 6 atnite 03 tbo
boavexs aida no viiliun at sgslixem
30 tata
ven
|
tneupseduve eldd bas ogsiiatem
r
Ue, aunt vise
evotvs1q
bilevat
to bayorg
ual _nptbens) (d) sno
of MguontiA
«wal ubst es amse
ofd ef wel aptbeasd sdT
boog ak ae xo sd 2F agstiiem to oso] 2 dguomds gatog Yd yasgid 23 immo> od
ted 10 sitiw ati
baadeuil
ylavounttacs
162 treads
esvstied
eixtuosg
need ead busdewd
oldsmorgset
om no bas ante?
rsd xo stiw eid 2t 10' basb od
eid ted? nwoml evad o9 bevezg tom at ode xo of bas eysey aeves Jeaq siz Be -8aL 9.8.0
.(ad) OL .n92 (2381 to VI 392A) 334 sozxovid niet .
of
boil
#02 sbeM VEOE -xegadell ~v 1
yee
(
‘a
$ (essi} Roalol ov.
“hh
ar:
See a0
i
‘
eres
ta a
beta
I ee
162. wife
or
her
yet
such
spouse has
husband
marriage
is
not
alive
been
grounds
that
of
for
marriage has
no
;
No
or
applicant's
for
F
asking
statute
be
has
goes
it
to
been
and
seven
or
years,
supposedly
the
former
the
to
that
be
he
‘ in
enacted
and
from
the
the
dead
until
the had
dead
marriage
other
party
and
has
been
the
contrary
no
jurisdiction
been
the
:
the
seen
or
heard
applicant's
to marry
western
of
latter
within
be
court
fact
the
the
living
absence
of
the
to
the
wishes
of
a proceeding
in
has
reasonable
presumption
petitioner
f
where
she
of
that
Moreover,
not
dead
all
such
party
;
or
in
upwards
far.
who
a decree
other
is
so,
if satisfied
to make
or
she
do
spouse
is
those
absent
celebration
absent
that
presumed
ae
for
he
it
the
empowered,
years
that
that
should
seven
that
empowering
its
of marriage;
believe
Statute
during
fact,
death,
continually
statute
time
in
is now
has
Canadian
years
court
of
evidence
an
of
a period
to
any
5
dissolution
been
at
if,
time
presuming
:
is
invalid
the
the
for
reason
,
time
alive
Giese icda
exist
and
is
at
In England
death
was
that
BS
proved. of
a
to
declare
over
seven
only
ee:
again.
reason Such
, 55 provinces, but
a
these
eal (Gan.)oCriminal
Code,
1953-54,
Ch.
51,.
Sec.
«240(2)'-
52 Englishavn,
English
(1923)
19D.i. Ra
419),
53 (Eng...)
The Matrimonial
Causes
Act,
1965
(10
& 11 Eliz.
2 Ch.
72)
54 In
re
Debray
(1942)
3 W.W.R.
335.
5)3)
G3¢>)—thestarriage-Acts
Ris vBs Crh)
(Man. ) |Die Marriace
Kso.th,
(Sasker)
TheiMatetace
(Alta...)
The
DL A the
present
ACE, Acty
Act,
a Sh enethe fact
other
party
to
2954.
The
that
Marriage
the marriage
has
Act
dead
contrary
been
154,
Ch.
302,
R.S.A.
for a period
the petitioner has living within that
the
Che
R.S.5..%.1983,
petitioner and other party is
until
60S~Ch.-2325—See.—
specs
515
125.
Sec.
37.
1970,
of seven
continually
Chap.
years absent
226, from
no reason to believe that the time is evidence that he or she
is proved."
Sec.
or upwards the is
.
oe 37
an
Se
basb esi to tusadia of , 2987 at|
to mkt eda 35 ovils ak sevoge agehy zed Temagt 4dt bas oottssdeles ett
“ sbaviosetb sed, 3onsad ol sidsnosket tedd botteitee TE ,batswoqms woo ef dawoo $f2 bosignd
6 fiove ai bas isgetrrem Yo moftuloeath to bas dissb
3581 9f3 gntbesoo1g of viteq
att
jeda a
gnivil
otdatw
10 etsey moves
ebrswqu
19d30 sa
bos tenotsbdsq
sf4
astisi
Sia Ifjnu
noktdnibetrut
m6vee
wsvo
to byned
vino
noeser 5 dove
need
besb at ode 10 9d Isd3
et omits gomebtvs
joa
sf?
.18 3ad3 e90g a3usjete matbsas) off oft
,o8 ob 03 ah gnixswoqms
bad onw sauoge
beob od 03 bemuasiq
viism
ot esd2iw
sfe to of Jsd3
wistesw
ssonbvosg
99
sivisie
a’ insotiqqs as tends
oft oredw
Re i atadd
ogsir1em
of noasst of asd
on aed Sxu09 s$9a
nesd esd
e'iosobiqqs
sud $
seasd3
re
& rot asd
tsd3 evetied
s to sonseds offi nk ,tevostoM o3
Yo hotreq
toseda ylisumtiaos
sft mort
assed esd yixsq 19030
tavern od yisyadoo
sis{sob
.tidnsb grikouesing tol taixs ebmuotg
to sStosb 8 osdam 02
to motiqmuestq
od bluoda
azsey
at 2k sot gnides
Yo Efe at bstosns
need ead stuIsse _
.092 ,f2@ «AD .d@-E2@T
-(2)O88
x07
@ a
ae
.sbod Ientmiz) (.089)
‘og gata (etek Meta (Oana (CY .Ho © .sifa EL a OL) C8OL (4oA eseush fekmomtz3eM ofT (. gaa) de
CCE .ALWLW E (SACL) yetded st aT ~ 7 1
es
298 eet
io dee! wMBe :
GO -oee (SOE ido (2eOr 7.2 semen:
.08@ ,OSE sqedd OVS .A.2.8 3oA ogekzzaM SAT ebtaway 1O @IBSY never
to bolxeq s
sda mont taseds yileunttnos ned
esd
,
7ot taeda
Sgsixtam
edd ted4 svetied.o3 noasst on esd3
et emi 3ed3zo od ted3consbive ei sie
=~
es, statutes
being
authorize of
the
as
with
notice
such
of
: given
the
to
the
(vy
in
the
hearing
of
of
(a)
Hindu
lack
which
adoption
or
ratification.
between;
the
case
marriage
facto
parties where
is
case
Divorce
Act
of
consent
capable
where
of being
The there
is void
ab
was
no
initio
the
would
Hindu
law
existed,
make
it
to
dissolution
issuer
of
a petitioner
if
. it has
been
should
the
former
held
fact
spouse
that
in all
oie This in
marriage
a marriage
is by statute
is
cases
; is
now
be
was
induced
void
voidable
capable or
only
law
consent
void
so
otherwise; or and
in Modern
in which
becoming
parties
by force
carefully
marriage, of
declared
or
in English
the
of a void
the
for
therefore
Hindu
long
and
fraud,
to
the as
both
case
though by Anglo-
Pane
56 Tomberg
v.
Tomberg
(1942)
3 D.L.R.
687.
57 In re
Tomberg
(No.
2)
(1942)
4 D.L.R.
773.
58
J.D.M. ae
187.
Derrett:
be
by subsequent
be drawn
to
party
may
phenomenon
valid
must
by cohabitation
but
rare
rendered
but
and
consented
a very
consent
marriage,
this
the
invalid
the Act
distinction
non-consenting
consent
the
of 1968.
is
the
not
in
: Di province.
when
have
though
a licence
under
the
of
Constitution
Law
transaction
de
even
In Alberta
a petition
Canadian
decreeing
the marriage
of
the
Consent
India,
unimpeachable
the
issues
, 56 alive.
the New
‘back
does,
provinces
fact
under
Therefore,
a declaration
under
In
the
statute
attorney-general
required
cannot
marriage.
har is in
dead
acts,
English
licences
declared
not
the
petitioner's
marriage
armed
provincial
"Introduction
to Modern
Hindu
Law"
(Oxford)
(1963)
tgnt laaxSe2s0due notulowetb ora Yo gntssasSb oft .290b suse dab
Yo “xougel oy iigvoda favs ,sto%stedT “ogetrtam! e!saniotsiteq 3Hf¥To isroljaizeg 8 03 sonaakt & esuzel
asonivord ater
eednsbit! opie tae
edt Ii bilevak nt ogsixzsa of3, sottametoeb6 dove dshw bears
sauoga x9mx01
jadd bisd aved aad af savodta nt °°Jovtte goa3 mt at baab beaaloab ed esaso Die at blwode 390A oda tobnu golsiisq s 2e gatasen sfd 3o eoizen Xe santverq sa
at joni ak aldT
won
.8801
lo Laxemag-ysat0d3s odd of nevig
to to4 soxovid well efit isbay bettupsz doa
jnsen00 30 dost
wad ubat# s& to nonsmonsdq
bhov
dotdw
gakmoosd Jmsamoo
eft oj
fted an ato! of3
sep.
dgveda
oe bos
roi
to sideqss
04 taeenos
943
et doidw nobtonansx3
zo sokigobs
-moijsottijsz
adT
|
al
wasawied
s1sdw seso sd
on ssw s1edt
Yo sfdsqes at jud ofaiat ds bkov et sgsiizem od eskixeg
btov
, busi
tO y31sq
9289
edj nadw sldsdosegminu
agnitmeesoo-non
berslosb sd yem sgeivitam ods bas ,sgsizism 03982 sb
j;setwierto
-olanA yd sitotszesds
Se
gaied
(6)
,stbaI
to dost
insenmo.
mwe1b ed Jeum gotjonlselb
.sgeirram
at
Wisv 5 ai
berebnsy
yd bilsv
Inaupsedua
yiliieres
or
{(v)
ro. molisaidsdos
so so10%
yd beoubat
yd beitnesenos Jon oved ests1sq any jud
,bstatxe
sagea02 sisdw
bos wel deitigna at btov ogetseam a sism aaron atd3
.wsd ubmtH misboM ni ylno sidsbiov sivtsie yd ek es an ubatl ta
if
“ :
oT
583 AIM E (SACD gncan® wv
4
.
[1931]
Sangievs
Singhe@l97/1)
Parojcic
v.
Parojcic
2 W.W.R.
2 W.L.Rs (1959)
Trudel
(1969)
not
ceremony Hindu
900.
903.
1 All
E.R.
1 (fear imposed father)
alk v.
could
went to the ceremony of marriage. 49 T.L.R. 99; mistaken belief that
Dame
Richard
N.B.R.
Moss
voeMoss.(1697)866..3-2..203,
983.
U2: at
265—9),
by Petitioner's
as
yi
aoke
so
nace
Wy
2. Satin es ed enteams dba aad Pan esinisesqqn y21eq rise tt sud ©. oyatyrey gnbodyIn0d atwitetse Ga on ,tsiifo sofa’ tw sgeivase Yo mo? 5 Hoyordd gntog ef Site'xo! ifsarfs
bist Hded wad 3¥ aust
.BikOy Joat2n05 949 cin aapSieretn 20ogya ito
a'vdisq teijo of es Saetaia & yd barwb kiagat ‘ed ton [fiw ogsirism @ eee oid yd noinw ad3 Yo MORMgose1
s+
Yo ,yItiesdo e'nsmow odd .envsI02
IN -snotdentnonsh evotgiiex ‘asttusq Isiotemmoy
sit
nolistnesetqsielm SB
..g-5)
*\ sod460
sxstein
Jnsoon#r
svidszsge
,@gnixizem
to sopriaos sdf Yo y2tbiisv
To tgeivbusr?
xo 393i goteluames
sd yout test
eq%
.blov
YW nedkd
to sonseds sd bivow
(ynoms199 oft To siuytsa sd3 oF
e¥ yoxbq sit Jo Insanor
od?
al doidw sgatriem
ssatiiem
.2feast
ti 30d
6 asoubni notistmrersrqsizela sf4
02 aotelugmos
sdT
yd betostts ed jon [itw Josiinoo
sad xa bebbov sd IfLiw Speta rem sd?
oink 16309 ade
sitinu
ef
.03 bserge
oid
1
to Jos7IN09 ei over
isven
blyow nyarS
“UK gon blyos ofw asifaad
cA ;0E8
.T.d EE
,(28e@L)
bY -v goilsv
.$g82t1sm Yo yaoms1s> sf3 03 tosw bose detigad tai tetisd feandelm ee 4.1.7 OA (SE@L) 4
basistsbay Vv Bi 7003 .2.8 ILA S$ (€d@t) cette -v¥ sitisM
yoomsas> : ybatH tad3 Yetisd dsaedetm
cay
.fofeitsynea avotgtis1 to yromezs2 aaw Rating ogelrise if |
s6a8
PS .
.00e
AWW
-€ae.
J.W
&
[
>
[ree
2.I.W
é
PEsi“A‘S
c “ate ' et
2'xenoltise% vd heeoqu rset) L pt IfA § (®2@L) (x8d4e2
atstox. '
:
;
7}
”
168.
due
to a number :
ruptcy
was
of causes.
proceedings
fraudulently
:
carrying
and
Thus,
matters
and
if he
brought
bear
upon
to
still
be void
would
not
[D]
have
GROUNDS (i)
until both
even
the
yielded
to
MARRIAGE
and
(a)
Hindu
Law
In
India
impotency
’ or without
of
of
the
marry
party's
susceptible be,
where
the
to
man
child
she
her.
will
the
and
was
74
was
pressure
marriage
courage
the
may
resistance
IS VOIDABLE
at
the
the
the
time
petition
amounts
to
: in
not
or
Non-Consummation
impotence
orgasm
73
bank-
ieee
Impotency
physically
A
did
ordinary
instituted
father
particular
might
of
the
if he
that
a person
woman,
,
prosecuted
another
the man
the
he was
to be more
than
though
where
shoot
that
is whether
him
presentation
inability
be
happens
ON WHICH
parties,
to
to believe
he would
overborne,
example,
threatened
made
that
what
and
For
is
of
the marriage
another
to
the
same
consummate
the
marriage
female.
76
. is
It
ground
defect,
and for
namely
by normal
aes sufficient
: if
continuing nullity.
In
incurable
coitus
one
with
party
, is
73 SBCOLE
Ve
oebi i eht
(1326)
56 LP
aL.
74 Grit Lite.
Grinthh 1944).
peo
3.
75 Webb v. Webb (1969) 3 D.L.R. 100. Thomson Vv. Thomson (1971) 4 W.W.R. Sco (O.B,). Szechter v. Szechter (1970) 3 All E.R. 9053; (marriage contracted in prison in Warsaw to enable woman to escape from Poland) Parojcic v. Parojcic (1959) 1 All E.R. 1 (fear imposed by Petitioner's father) 76
G.
Venkateswararao
T.
Rangaswahi
American
and
v.
v.
G.
Nagamani
Aravindammal
Indian
A.I.R.
A.I.R.
authorities
is
(1962)
(1957) made
in
Mad. this
An.
P.
243: case
151.
a review at
245-8.
of
English,
nA)
7eee
~suit Seaustint aaaitbc efagnes! S08 widthSe eas SS nam ails sxoriv z> °°asmow afta 20048 ot hides darNallpasta taen eae enw sia poriaginenaedag boi nit’doas! SURGERY SS ates Gitielabone? gue”
t ded Galas Hex ERE cif 21 ‘bedubsncky Oe SREee dul toe gota aew Iftw e'viteq telustixeq iad3 redtedw at exetjam dadw .eudT sivaastg oid ot slditqsoave o1om od od enoqqet ed 2t bas .9atod1sve
vem sgsitism oda ,9d jngim teions asdt abd noqu ised of diiguoid sontteteet
bus Sgstyoo yisatbio
lo moetsg & dguods neve
hiov sd Llive
o% by 67 ‘Hebleiy evad son bloow
BJGAGIOV 21 HOATARAM HOTEW fo 2qMuoRD [a] cotjsmmanod-10u
bas yotstogmI wed ubnil
goiuntinos si
bos ogsitram
.yviaitiun
tot bovoxe,
sidexvont ijiw
tsdz0m&
Isarson
so
yd sgsivism
Ti tastotitve
sd3
3s yonsioqmt
el nolstisg
yleman, .Josteb smse
evitoo
2k yiasq
sai to smi3
(s)
sibal aI
lo notisiasesxq
ei
o2 ajnuoms sons3oqmi
sf3
sismmyenos
et +1
if
sf3
(tf)
edz Itsou
.esitsisq diod
o3 ylisoteydq
ystilidsat
O* tame? edd at agegx0 suodi iw 10
|
.
ake
.L.d.0 O¢ (O8$6I) 3dgixdse .v 33002 ‘
-2€ 51.7 (ANGE) dahiataD .v dstapeaD |
-OOL
at
.4.1.0€ (@deL) d
-(.8.0) €8€ .A.W.W Sd (1TOL) goamor
at betast3non sgeizrsm)
;20@ .2.4d {1A & (OTOL)
sede
isW
v
SmOF
igidoss
(baslo® moxt “tear o3 asmow sIldane ot pence oma
10
a'zanoisigst yd basoqmi asst) I .A.a LIA { (@20L) stopoxsd .v ototorsd 7 (r9d38t
‘per c@ oA (CL) wA.T.A 2
elignd to weivet s 8-28
nt ted s ea bsay yisosupaxi, jon at etdT
ot alist sauseth ot baeeogorq wt 31
Pit
on
|.
bans? bos atbol-ot sgsizzaa
-Yeaqado, 1943702 » ok Lipjeb
notisdovauA (Ht) eseiyiems of3 S1t9edw ,dosxtnos at tauq ylevitostie
oldebiev
vem Jovbao> mwo
eid yd 191013439q aia ,sidsbtov ef
aad tot ss2 2.082 ,2OS.dD OTOL . 5A eonaahe | oAT eae igot ofT (.D. bas ates? od yer edt to t2eq 943 no ,elamt vintelq oe
aa sgaiyism sft to yitbilav bas somesetxe yretiaes bes sldsiiupenl Jaom 31 rebas2 03
ad bfuera ode xo od tao yokloq
o¥Eduq 02
fitiw Sf sgrolicis o3 no og
bes355209 “ jostis
habtsest
sved
of3 meee
o3 assd sed
Ine%g o3 -badetidases
eatywoo Leatsesieetonoe
ef
said betong al 3i audT
asd yomebust letobbet axe bom oda .2n0 atulosds
tonotatiaq
x9woq ased
yitzsluctdzeq
seve
2'Imwoo efs aiditw ard nottsdoxqgs
at satizoob
enolismmyenoo-non & svar modd
silt dgyod?
isd?
[Ltie
sono
aidT
oa
,yenokistoetb
as 3t bisgs%
ak ik .ogpivism ed? betsdozqqs
, 1svewod
.bstnsig
ns es xsd ads
.soigoss79 al
OSE
9d 03 se 799b ond 102 e181 et 3f
30 ‘sone toqmi mo beasd al noritieq one stedw
to duom
dud ose
asan9
svaeh 8
r9d30 ak sldsoiiqqs -x89y 900
tnsveist
el tt dauodiis to timii
smt3
22983 to yelod (et) gud yirosqaont
ed?
e'sevoge
redt0
sii
bre 3983 of3 ni esoestupos
to wom
o2 asmo>
Ssavoqe
sno stodW
7
hos omit gnol & 101 gotdiyaer 6bstentaeob
yd ted3 woky of3 asdsd trc02 oft ogetutsm 9ild sisbtlevad 03 aiasg ,z938t ,
——————
ah al
GAY. TAy
ee
eye
a
|
eee)
Se
pn
ig
=
7
sian mee oh US aes
161). his
delay
facts; from
he has
and
he
seeking (iv)
is barred a decree
the
are
or
subsequent
commonly
abraad,
and to
party
used
is
wife
marry
to
the
Canadian
courts
say
still
from
pleading
[G]
SUGGESTED ike
eel v.
of
mind
later,
cases
to
know
after
void
by the
the
and
or
foreign
recognize
the
from
of
the
approbation,
a voidable
doctrine
court.
seek
domiciled
a divorce
other
money
divorce
is
it and
that
approbation.
of
estoppel
to have
The
In a suit
marriage.
with
seeking
are
to Canada.
maintenance
not
where
and
for
in connection
a party
elsewhere,
that
estoppel
in Canada
returns
do
courts
that
kind
his of
situation
in Canada. in
a foreign
in a Canadian
claims,
invalid
this
the
They court.
court
party
in Canada,
therefore
second
because
original
the
generally
foreign
hold
divorce
that is
such
a party
is
estopped
ipa
REFORMS Decree
LOA Wood
of Nullity
is
of much
less
importance
than
Divorce
Oleg eDialeenS Ons
[1903]
6, D.L.R.,
Romeo’) artery. Patricks S]7aOs Dee Re 648.
Ov e
he came
subsists.
Canadian
Reg
or
inheritance,
attempts
of
declared
follows:
now
The
his
is used
to prevent
subsequently
concerning
estoppel
as
U.S.A.
bar
number
marriage
found
Husband
of
a large
independently
marriage
changing
defined
doctrine
is
One
from
after
of eee
is no well
There
go
the marriage
Estoppel
There Usually
approbated
41;
(935)
Burpee
v.
29D0.L.R.
Burpee
Slie
[1929]
Fite
v.
3
Fife
odd Yovor e2:amna edxs%e 2
|
,
GAT WeReee
Cae
_,no} sado7qqe ‘atte ymaaat batmat tanado . 41 foes’
wrt
3 ve!
|
Toe tesmens 00 a :
,
°.4e. (Anes
“
ifboc 2aifew on al axedT Yo 18d
-Sasitiam aidsbiov s 102 i
diiw coltosnaos nt beev et Leqqodes:Ro»Suastsdenb sit yiisvel
Motisdoiqqs
-
i
Leqgqosas to eatx3c0b sdf stedw aeasd 20 tedmum sgisl s ox exedT boonsa etd oved of gakieee mort yitéq 8 inevetq oF beau ylinsbueqebat et
.dawoo ef3 yd btov berslosbh sgsizzam jneupsadue x0
soitsutta to batt sdT
as at bavot yInoamos
:ewollo?
yesit .J1yos
jrvoo
.absae) at beliotmob sus bes.sbansd at yrrem sitw bas hana
astbensD
yiusq seunoed
s ot sovevth
ngisxot
tive
,emialo
efdd
at
.sbers)
Lantgiio
es ok
sid
s dese
8 ml
yenom
bifsvnt
s1stersds
.sbersD
redjo
yo
al sotovib
JeAd
,sresiweale
bas
02 entujes
sonsas3alem mgts1z02
ef
yo
[email protected]! 03
ylinsupsedue pre tad3
yea
.beoxds an
x378q on0 eadusmonta
o3 adaawate Wort
Soe it astngooss toa ob a3 1w09 nskbened ad
eteledue Lftse oanizzem t
beqqotes
et yiveq 8 dove tad
blod yilsxensg atmos netbeans) oft ;
Sot jrlevad al so10vib agletot sdy Jsed2 gatbasiq most
aumoaaa astasooue [2] sqi0vid oad? gonsj1oqmt aesl soum to at qitiluK to sessed
A
U2 .
(Decree clear
Nisi)
and
satisfactory.
available, idea
of
and moreover
the
the
the Since
statistics
importance
law regarding
of
the
statistics
England
of nadie
nullity
are
of
is not
India
reproduced
and
below
wholly Canada
to
give
are
not
an
tae
PETITIONS
1961 | 1962) Yoid
Marriages
Voidable
|1963)
| 19641]
2965.
})0t966 |) Awerace|
Ue
Ts
Marriages:
|
Incapacity
155
144
Wilful Refusal
174
179
349
444
Incapacity
Wilful
and
Refusal
Unsound Mind Epilsepsy
or
ay,
Pregnancy
Venereal
Void
Disease
|
ile/
|
LE
DECREES
NISI
1962
1963
1964
1965
Average D7
Marriages;
Incapacity
299
338
339
314
Wilful
176
g27
318
278
Refusal
14
5)
Marriages
Voidable
|
eS Report of the Royal Commission on Nullity Paper No. 20 (June, 1968) at p. 3.
of Marriage.
Working
|
vliorw ton ek wabitin ankbisasy wallsil9 vaveston ae ton 938) wheter tine wrbAT 0 astiet tase ofa santa bleselaiecina teal ‘, ng svtg 03 wolsd besubo1qst 918 bnefgad Qo eokteliase orf3 sfdeltevs cSt es biiun to somst2zogmt efi io sebl
evoITITa? SRZe7ovA
| ex
esgsitisM broy
|
teegalzzeM sldsbrov
| Aal
yitosqsony
| OXL
Isevted LviLiW
| das
Isevted
bas yitosqsonl |
fytliw
70 beiM bavoeal af
yeqseliqh
yonsiigsTt sesseid
| |
fein
LasrsaeV
a2aaAgs0
.
7
2
Ale
REE
8ée
BXS
Bie
| tse
1et
f€e
Pees | CLe
‘
)
viiosgsont
fsevteA Lutliw-
183
e
Average
Unsound
Mind
or
Epilsepsy
13
Pregnancy
ad
Venereal
Disease
By way for
divorce
of
in England
river cosece the
decree
further
marriage
the
not
have
then
there
above
should
to wait
were
made
as
grounds
grounds
for
were
down
41,081
and
decree
for
be
of divorce
46,890
it
period
the
divorce. in
because
of
submitted
all
placed
petitions
nisi
is
instead,
grounds
should
a longer
set
in view,
abolished
be made
these
existing
there
statistics
be
should
that
from
in 1966
and
the
nullity
submitted
separate
will
Keeping of
of voidable
comparison,
that
grounds
It
is
a category
the
specified
petitioner
for
the
divorce
grounds. Be
In
the
convention
(because
times)
above
the
void
and
such
as
void
and
voidable
‘invalid’
124 Ibid.
voidable
alternative,
the decree
submission
marriages
may
is
it
is
of nullity not
should
was
has
possible
its
then
be abolished.
be advantageously
marriage
submitted
used.
originally
that
if due
origin the
from
very
distinction
Instead
about
by the
ancient
between
a neutral
The distinction
brought
to
term
between intervention
SBCACS NCIC * f anol ttteq 088.3% mwob Jee srew oxvedd B80! ot .soataeqman to yaw va”
|
to tain sexosb 180,16 sham s19w s1sd3 bas baelgnd at sotoyib pl jeq2
betiimdue
et 3f ,weivy ab eotteistste
ebouotg of2 Efe ,basteci
ei af
bos berleliods ed bivore yatilow to eorsenatd
a nt beneiqg ad Biuode
tsqoljtisg oda
6, sb. {
veotevib tod ebmdorg es she ad blyode opets take efdabloy te
yioaoiso
so1ovib
svods sid gniqesd
161
ea
seusssd
bsltinesde
souovib bolteq
ebhbnvorg sesds sed bstaindue Io ehnvotg
segm0l
gnijelxs
ed3 mo7?
s tot 3isw oF svsd
R
2xedzxut | otsisqae
jon nsid IfLiw
care
ot sub ik tsi beigimdve el af .svisanre2Ie edd oI
8
sastone YIsv oy? nigtxo eth esd yIbilum to esssosb sd2 danntath mtaevene
neowsed aokiontielh ols pity a¥dbetog we ae aokesimdys evods os 7 e3
Letdpen s Wie
_bedetiods sd bluode: mie.
dabtoy bas_ htow
asowied sotsoatserof |.beeu vimoseetmebe ad en'betevnt* 26 dpue notsnotrsasih ol y suede ddguord othe sew»
ames
.
184.
of the
common
in England
law
from
courts
the
13th
solution
for
viz.
bastardization
the
because Badia
a social
practically
oo and
children
out
Thus
entrusted
with
afresh
the
at
is,
both
marriage
the
if
existing
that
was
to
-
under
both
perhaps
It has
argue
term
problem
Ages
has
at
laws
which
are
now
been
and that
and
also
in
provides
that
any
which
enable
is not
lawyers
the
that
prescribed
instead
being
a marriage
of
that
being
if
the
of marriageable
many
years
age
later
-
at
in which the
void
as
parties
time
in
The
its
already
ground
nullity
be
term
been
submitted
included should
under
it
they
discover
that
is
hard
nullity
divorce,
be retained
Lesitimacy
Act,
1960,
Chap.
126
Marriage
Act,
"1955,
Section
16.
ey
Matrimonial
look
one
the
marry
age,
and
yet
new
56,
Sec.
spouse
case
under
genuinely on
that
should it
them their
grounds
Causes
Act
1965,
Section
1l.
sec.
be
is possible may
5.
(BeG.) sine lecitteimacy Ace. RIS .5.G.., u00. Che 217, (Sask.) The Legitimacy Act, 1961, Chap. 4, Sec. 5.
Hindu
to
of
125 (Alta...)
solved
legitimate
'invalid' would
a legal
in England,
present
is annulled
such as
provide
Middle
in penaigee
submitted
reason
are
This
to
courts
nullity.
ratifiable,
they
the
legal meaning
further
the
in
which
ecclesiastical
in order
legitimization
of the
of
of the
void.
4. abolished
province
has
are,
be
law,
subsequently
marriage
is
onwards
existing
of a marriage
spouses
should
believing
every
concept
practices
of children.
the use
It or
century
an historical
Je
the
problem
Enelenie
born
children.
with
o>
be
ob SL
.
‘y
;
:
(
:
‘
|
7
\.
~neiaioe
ss
=
ae
Lagetira,patties, $9 tsbi0mt ebrewnox bare kant mb segs ofbhiM edd ok thei bsvice assed wom earl mgidowq atdt
.asabLids to ]
ai opts brs tnsesiq
us
35 OSE sand nt sanivorq yrevs yilesttios12q seysosd
Jef3 asbivorq dolkdw ewal molsasimiiige! sad NSS, atght bas OS tear
Sdemttiael sta bsllunas et doldw oastxirem e to suo mod nexbl{ids Som ak dotdw 400l
03 e1tsywsl
"biisvat'
sidans
es niove mys
biuow gutnsem
sdd i6 seu sd3 eudT
[sgeo!
.asabi ido
Isatywotelsd os dttw betevsine
.vatifiue to 3qsoros add 48 deoris seuoge
smo dokdw at ogstryam a tsi3
bottimdusa
wordy
2o smbk3 af2 ts ogs bedbiseszg sd3 19boy 1sben
see9
siz at as btov
| ¥lontunsg
vite
msii3
basd
aisid
ao
gmtsd
estiyeq at
3t
afd
to bestent if
ted2
A
,9%8 esevoqa
,sidsitiset
snisd
.sge sldasgetrisa
et 31
noass1
to diod
sd bloods
adi 918
diod Yo id
.wal
yes
sgetizem
gnisetxs sit
jadt
apie
tad3 tevoveib ysda - 1t93si erssv yasm aqsdisq ~ ylonsupsedue 2 -blov 2aw ogshrzas
sd
bluode
sidieeoq
yslilue
tedt
bettindue
need
ef 2t toy .sotovib tabew bebylomt
ybseeile
esd 31
sd bnovoiwg att
od Yam: abnuoxg wea bos on essed $d hlwode mrs2
.o
bos borfetLod
ampere tad - angie od
2ge -¢ ,908 ,0@ .qadd ,Q6@l ,39A youmlitged sdT (. 831A) +2 .992 ,SIS .dd ,O8@L ..9,8.2.8 ,490A yoamtsige! sit (.9.8) .
‘yA
dln
ae
208 (A .qaild ,£8@L.,30A Youmbatge! odT (dena) —
|
eer
monk
error
tt
ost
ara .
nn nt
We boy added
to)
TE.
The
following
additional
(a)
A spouse
having
offences
or
hard
case
yet
convicted,
solve
(b)
or
The
illnesses
for
nullity
and
venereal
ground
on
the
mental
disease
Other
disruptive
of marital
are
effect as
on
the
express
the
other
grounds
husband
tells
for
grounds
epilepsy
time
of
the
are
either
because
spouse,
his
eek Pe criminal.
which
life,
or
not
present
the
diseases
hereditary
eliminate
disorder,
at
of
It would
where
at
suggested:
certain
though
run.
are
marriage.
they
would
: convicted
a
which are
of
the marriage
was
be
term
who,
problem
after
; is
he
convicted
a man
is
the
immediately , wife
of
may
a certain
This
the
also
been
served
imprisonment.
grounds
of
may
because their
be made
annulling
the
marriage.
(c) Another
ground
that
spouse's
concealment
status.
The
fresh
dreams
matrimonial
may of
be his
suggested
is
a
matrimonial
of
forming
a new
and
home
remains
a tragedy
of
128 A man serving a sentence get married and ran away
of life imprisonment took permission to Spain with the newly wedded wife.
What
know
if
the
wife
did
not
that
he
is
a convict?
to
ee J fom Higuods ,odw nom 6 rey Bivow#2 nut si3 no et cbesatvaos 1ey a Tay ge"
ati’, 7
ee
ee
ee
Ls acih time .
ald shi sasizvism si3 isite yYlsiatbomeat
ld ba
|
B81 tedimito bSsolveo> s sew ‘to at’ efSw
-
vaqsliqa ,ssbvoukb Istosa sis ytiilva sol ef3 io omit of
.ogsPttem
seusood
ttedi
tsdtis
Iszizem
,siti
to svksquyeib
2
86
pr b4
=”
ort gutifuans sot ebuuowg aeotqxe ae
8 oO
-sgeitism "8 ah bsjesgeve od Yeu dads brwoxg isrit0mA (3) >
-
aid
A8 —
=
a seansite:
a
i)
- ici
Pa
beg Font ore
hoe pl
viel=
ww »Se!
§
mint te
og
les
a
We
when
shen ad yam .sevoge ssdi0 od no 39823
“ whegex3 5 ankasst baal verien stam dee? ¥
ay
swollen
d yoda lo seandsed to yrsitibersaxes
‘Istaomtrssm aid to sognlessdes s*euoqe
es
me
‘
Js sausath feorsnsv bas
axe dofdw aseeseth 19f30
' .
[=
ehnuotg inseszq Js 21s dobdw eseeontlt aT (a)
=
_
=
:
i‘@ »
: Ee): wn
186. high
intentions
marriage been
discovers
twice
he had
children
a wife
that
married
illegitimate
(d)
where
and
her
by another
at
any
complaint.
ground
Habitual
for
drinking
in Canada
has
divorce.
It
may
be
present
and
now is
added
does
made
suggested
in India
as
that
and
an
woman. not
addiction
been
had
divorced,
marriages
non-disclosure
her
husband
twice
by both
child
after
give
to
as
This
drugs
a ground
that
this
a ground
her
for
ground
for
nullity,
too.
(e) As already adoption
pointed
poses
within
the
child
might,
related
It
is
after
under
sideration such
the
impossible
may the
marriages
the
as
growing
to
regards
of
An
up,
these
valid.
of
degrees.
and
chance,
compare
in
some
European
countries.
Poland,
marriage
is prohibited
adopter
and
the
Germany
and
Greece,
be
the
if
so
into
how
the
con-
making of
interest
adopted
In Finland
child;
between
someone
taking
to
adopted
of
adopted
consequences,
It may
position
marriage
prohibited
inserted,
element
chapter,
marry
say whether,
occur
be
previous
degrees.
chart
there
a clause
in the
a problem
prohibited
frequently,
but
out
between
child and
the
in West adopter
and
oar
en}
a,
er
men
tne
_ ba beaded sed
iM Ase au
:
heen
e
neat vty 1
a
Si chen
Be bee me
ae
;|
_
4 +?
ort
bikdo
.
;
ieaey
eh iad on
ns
es xed svig jon 3350 Eten t. ‘rusoloetiea
. sits Iga 703 bavorg ys
rs
aguab ‘es nobioibba bus gatdntth IsusideH (b)
7
Yot bavoys 6 2s sbam nod ‘won usd -sbens®? at
bauoxg etd? Jed3 bedeeggue st 31 +Yiillun
193
bayer
s es sibnl
:
.sas0vtb
at bobbs sd yam
Pin
+003
:
.tsiqed9 avotvetq sa ni duo bedmbeq ybsetiaeA (5) sasiiursit ebisge1
es meldorq B sseeq mokiqohs
.
hedgobs nA .esetgeb besdididerq sd2 aidciw srosmoe ,e9a7gsb
vist
;
,qu gaiworg 1933s .ddgim bLido
bsitdidorq
Io drsio add xebaw betaler
7 .
-
worl oz ti bos .1isdisdw yse of sidieeogmh ek 31 ePeonsupsenos
ie
sasdt 1990 s1si7 .¥itasupe7?
~a02 ofgt gnbisi -betzsant ag yam seupto 8 2ud gnidan 290604
io ‘tnemeto oat
deove3nk to od vem 3T at
ti of
et
|
4: -
= :
=.
Lew:
the
adopted
child
in Switzerland,
adopted
child
and between adopted
his
between
or
or
adopter
and
her
descendants
and
and
the
between adopted
natural
and
adopted
children;
only
extend
can
any
of
allow
adopted
child
adopted
children.
and
be granted
in France to
between
the
spouse,
child
but
the
or
adopted
degrees,
and
Italy
and
the
the
spouse
his
the
within
child's
spouse
between
marriage
and
the adopted child,
spouse
dispensation
descendants;
adopter
the adopted
in France
the
her
the
the adopter's
child;
adopter's
or
or
child,
the
and
adopter's
in Italy to
these
allow
prohibited
a dispensation
marriage
between
adopter's
can an
natural
or
ater stipes’ vis SM hsnao iaudgn’ 6
aM
bas .blindo betqobe ocj3 bas sevoqe e'xedqobs
a’aedqobs sf baw bitdo besqobe of? aeewied wollso2 bedaszg sd as5 notssensqetb beiididerg seeds fo yas atdsiw sgsitrem mso nolisemeqatbes onns7T oi tud ,aesmgeb, —
oe asewisd sgsiziem wolla 02 bastxe yao zo Isiwien e'xetgobs sr bas biido beiqobs
.a9tbiida besgobs
>
Theicm
BOs
1)
pe
Site
49
cp
&
B& Oe
@& om
At
De®
6s! a ee
_
cam
a?
*
C98!
tee
Opes
“Hemme ee
188.
CHAPTER The
[A]
ANCIENT Since
orthodox
HINDU
Hindu
Hindu
prescribed
according
to
law
except
the
lower
law
some,
;
the
:
that
a man
united
divorce
sAGIGEP
ancient
was
the
and
There
has
and
in
in another
certain are
to
Divorce
a
contract,
a woman
in
this
duly
married
world,
lives
to
in
states
divergent
in
permitted
India
views
to Manu
on
the
one
a distinguishing was
the
by a next,
and
Thus
feature
the of Hindu
by customs
where
the
inexorable
it was
question
among
permitted
of
divorce
4-
nor desertion, can from her husband."
a
he says:
"Let
mutual
this
in
the
not
remarriage
According
place
and
been
,
texts.
and
succeeding
"Neither by sale wife be released and
Relating
forever,
of marriage
where
Law
a sacrament
in all
by Pecistathent in
is
were
indissolubility
of
LAW
rule
rite
History
V
fidelity
few words
supreme
may
continue be
law between
till
death;
considered
husband
as
and wife."
it
Srinivasan:
"Hindu
Law",
(Allahabad)
(4th
ed.
-
1969)
at
458.
D
Jina
Magan
v.
Vai
Jethi,
[1941]
Bom.
L.R.
538.
3
The Bombay Prevention
Hindu Divorce Act [1947]; and Divorce) Act [1949].
4 Manu,
IX,»
46.
Mani
2X
ealOl.
5
the Madras
Hindu
(Bigamy
;
i,
'plqity
aldstoxsnt sf¥ .josyinos a ton bra Imemezose 2 st wel ubakH soak2 oe ir
ae
ace
WM)
hos
1@
Cae ere 'sbee osm 8 tad
@Ay
asw slut ubni xoborsxz0,
oe pal
,3xen ef2 ot lees ata? ot raven? fens Renee oxew siit bedtises1q
sia auriT
ants 0? eevi{
gntbsasoue ond Lis 0at ,smoe oJ gatbr0008
vubotH Ye styts51 gtitdelugnitetb s osesd ead sghivian to vai tdulosalbat gooms emotau> basitertesq
satevib
asw
yd beddiirieq esw sgeliysmst tins sotovth s1edw jqsoxs wal 3t
srodw
sibai
at
ssijada
hates ak tia vensaas sawol
to noltesup eft no ewsitv Jnsgisvib
"
}
rf5
7
; vs
,
oy
Ler
a
} na
ne
ee
a
89%, Narada
in his
celebrated
"If
text
the husband
retired from degraded, in
woman Though
:
widow
Manu
another
declares
that
a man
e
marry
recognize
and
sanction
forsaken The
of
the
bond,
husband
was
formally
with
from
parents. of
the
separation
to bear
her
deformity, great
fate
second
or
or impotent, or calamities a
may
the
only marry
other
marriage,
hand,
either
of
such
her
for
as
any
his
women
home
hand,
partnership
reason
of nirakarana,
the woman
surfterings disease,
or dead,
remarry: °
husband."
the marriage
if he wished
other
from
on
to
a virgin he
and
that
appears
to
of a widow
or
of
a
heavily
in
favor
spouse
was
and
could
the wife
husband
in any
in silence.
drunkenness,
often
had
not no
rested
to sever
"expulsion", and
ceased
pitiable find
infidelity,
to
and
declared the
by which
since
recourse
marital
to have
a home
circumstances
“Manu had’
the
relations
they were
with the she
that
husband
he
is
their privilege
was
obliged
in spite still
a
ce Was Brahminical
Narada,
XII,
Manu,
Vili,
Manu,
IX,
Srinivasan:
literature
has
few
records
of
divorce,
97-101. 226,
a
Ruoeande
the husband's
On
yet
by the rite
repudiated
The
the
break
who,
allowed
her.
driven
to
|
again,
by her
option
the world, these five
take
not
a woman
be missing,
may
may
wife
permits
V.
Lol—163,
175-176.
"Hindu
Law''
supra
note
1 at 454.
but
Buddhist
of
‘
o2 esseqqe od .onsd tadso sd3 ao tay‘ mtags yx3sm Jom yem woblw 8 te 1¢ wobiw ps jo xsdiio
.sgetiism bnoosa eid gottonse bas ssiagoses
® poodéud raul xd nedertoh eke tovali
at yiivesd
Istitsa
bstes1
odd tsvee
giffezsntisq
oF doeasy
ed doidw yd ,"noteluqes” esotisfie1
svad oF beets
sgaivram sd3 deetd
o3 ied
yas tot bedetw ed it ,onfw baadeuil sii io
.ensiadesic
to etfs edd yd bewolls asw . baod
bas savoge sir as memow sf3 bstatbuqes ylfewr02
aisw yet eomta sidaiaig motio0 eaw oswow dova Yo sts? eaT tied3 sasiiviig
diiw smod 8 batt jou sft
o3 saiuosg2
bluoo
, bored yedd0
oft 10
.etns18q
yas st bosdaud ed sox neisaa nee. to
betafosb bed yisM
& [lite st bradeud sdi
10d d3tw
bins earod e'bandeud odd mot? aevixb
om ben siiw oft
bagifdo saw ore bne esanreiamuotto
to stiqe ot isd?
oe
pyitisbiial
somalia
ot dgstuaitive asf ised oF
,easanednurb
,sesselb
yi imrotsb
. -yJisbh Jss1g
a
teidbbud aud ,sotovtb Yo abro291 wei esi sruaetstil feotntaderd x
-£01-Ke - *
:
ue"
i
7
3
eee
OUVL-20E Xt una
|
.2@8 36 £ 9300 Bique "wed. wom" err a | |
te
.
190; records
do
speak
of ReoeeTya®” consent
of
forfeited
her
his
received
at
cases
lower
divorce
classes
the
headman
the
sacred
his
wife
and
of mutual
If
a woman
divorced
by custom;
enmity her
father's
whatever
by
general
ancient
districts had
the
immoral
only
round when
custom
divorce
force
of
couples
relations,
and
the
she a man
he may
have
on
divorced
paying
divorce
permitting
custom
account
were
Subban
[1894]
neck was
17 Mad.
Magan
v.
Bai
_Jethi
op.
Thangammal
v.
Gengayammal,
cit.
by which 12
only
as
in
in
the
an
of
and
amount
giving
would
308.
be
and F fate invalidity
between
approaching
and
taking
it back
against
2. Mad.
no
disagreement
479.
[1945]
was
by parties
enforced
divorce
divorce
There
is
A.I.R.
it was
recognized
a certain
the
law,
a
agreement.
the wife's
the
was
2
Jina
with
prevailed
DE
v.
and
If
Hindu
however
where
in a caste
other
from
custom
by mutual
married
the
text.
Sankarlingam
Arthasastra
presents
10 An
The
husband
family.
to her
such
divorce
the
in her
return
could
It was
measure.
grounds
allowed
eas permissible
thread
that
not
It
by which
by consent
large
the marriage.
was
nothing
were
in
BY CUSTOM
in some
was
in a custom
husband.
of
custom.
, remarriage
them
time
to
not
on
rights
he had
permitted
There
divorce
parties.
ALLOWED
established
although
proprietary
the
Though some
the
wife,
DIVORCE
them,
permits
both
divorced
[B]
of
the
to
away
the
wishes
pidteeaiGee
of
«thes
wiste |
ae
La
ira ess
one Sh asm & if
apie
wrertdet ted al cide hs ae a
sod bettetxci
ova yam eft w$Mensiq Isvaeadv vert 03 Wiwiexof bail of.sPiw alifBeosovib vogelriem sf? % sats edd 3sbevisssx
Ta)’ yore yaamvousa sosov7a Sort ating at ssw at ,wel wbath levens, adi
ot yine bsltsverq
sit yd bewolle jon ssw satovib wir
zsvewod moteun
ns #8 besingosss
eaw sotovib
dove sxsw
pmodauo
bodiimssq seeds smoe
ejotitetb
smoe at aseesio
xowl
ED yet io 20102 ed9 bed 41 .motau2 badstidages bas sorovib viibitavat
saswisd
on
esw
stedT
jnomssigsetb
gridosoigge yews
dotdw vd modavo
goiasd
saitisq
bas tavoss
steso
2 si lerommt
St Anamno tes lsusum
lo inusoor
nisdien
yd aldiselmxsg
go asiques
xt beptovth
esw sredT s19W ogsliismsy
betrsam doltsdw yd moseud & at
s1aew bose ssirevib
s gritysg
gatdion
,eaotiels1
bluos JMS B09 xd msri3 ieiijo bus nembsed edz
aid ot dosed JE gatvig bos doen e'stiw ont bovor mort besxdd bersse od to eedetw
edt
dentass
besrotas
eew
Ef tage fit ad bluow sowoyrb
sotovih of
oda
medw yino esw 31
gntisieteq
motevo
ond
-basdaud
Jad3 gitw atd i
2x92
OL tJnaions oA ce.
+078
he
.beM TL [He8L} one wv magni lredlon?
Ir
—
Lom A caste her
pleasure
and
it has
allowed
custom
and marry
been
her
of
husband
wife
condition
attached
could
be recognized
not
opposed
to
regarded best
custom
where
public
grounds which
she
was
dissolved
had
been
prove
the
letter
that
incidents
could
was
the
not
of
dissolve
customary
that
only
or
upon
that
method
: void
v.
Laving,
[1878]
Khemkor
v.
Umashankar
even
of money
fixed
regarded
of
Bat
Gand?
the wife
divorce
For
he had
example,
marriage
2 Bom.
[1873] [1918]
the
unless
of
that
law,
divorce
H.C.
39,
Bom.
v.
Mt.
Jaggo
[1936]
Bulli
v.
Repetti
Nakalaju,
A.I.R.
again
and
writing
of
a that
: 1S) community.
302. A.P.
a
established
: particular
[1958]
But
allege
18
Repetti
or
the
to
381.
295,
caste,
on
valid.
538.
63 I.A.
sole
which
was
140.
10 Bom.
by
the
to marry
mere
it was
©
Ly
Gopikrishna
it
immoral
16 v.
if
the
by
eonetesinns
by the husband
customary
as
to Hindu
possibility
permitted
P divorce
party,
Ms)
Keshav
‘ , 14 immorality;
for
14 Narayan
at
be dissolved
divorced
areluctant
deserted
of
could
repugnant
the
and
legal
the
It was
as
custom.
a
husband
be valid
tie
of a sum
equally
a marriage
relied
of
courts.
sacred
abandoned
If a plaintiff
the wish
as
permitted
her
was
would
the marriage
by the
so
desert
consent
custom
payment
and
to
aye
against
the
. his
the
by which
policy
the marriage
of
his
being
a woman
F without
whether
with
caste
or
permitted
; again
doubted
to marry
A custom either
which
611.
to alscionaeal vd bevidestbsd bivos st? ogetriea ont dotdwyd s3eso
alow sft yeiang bessovtb edz to datv-eda teatagh*ehiy 36 Bandedd Gandia, -ot229 od3 yd bextt yenom to mue 6 to tnsmyag sad. ranpornrinpe
10 Isyommt as hebrsgs1 asw J]
=
.etivoo sf2 yd bestegoosx ad Jon biuos i]
dotdw .wel owbath oo dnanguqss yileups as bas yollog oifduq o3 bak )
sit mo sotovib to
tootdo sat
| i higaet
eesgsizism and o3 beliggs 435A eldg ioera:
beand enw JOA sid?
.@otowh
elds goticans of esqutaleigel atit 20 :
to wed deliggd od? 26 gatt 9msa oo} sii fo
afd bas Vé8{ 350A aseus) IstnomitxjaM of
ot apw 390A att
eda
ok
:
.(S\8L 20 TET) 395A ogattxeM [atosge@ axis to mPa: saa
wel matbal sit erate OF asw 3A
sid
eat ie
Jo tostdo edt
.atuvod
as gotioot
detfi ont
io esigtonuiizq 912 no ylatem
.d281 bas 0081 ,C28f to 325A gntbaems
yd bezssetalabe
smse afi so. sotsolbaltswt
wel
wreeirs tr
Isatsizo
sted3
bers soslq
40 satorexs 7 |
LetoomtataM
bas sotovid
si et1ves
sd3
yd bovoseatniabs wat tetnomtsa0M
-bnelgad ot sia }
ady zo tSsnoliiteq snl?
.amptisiazdd
o3 aetiqqs toA sotovid asibal sit —
estiiag
aijod x07 yrseassem
Jon at 37
Cf matsetadd s od seum serdaaaaey «g ie
s od oF ytueq ono tod smokoltiwe al ot wrotgtisy askzelidd 5 gesitorg setielidd ads MESS
seum seabioaian edz x6 yenotitieq edt ‘Ossna baeba9
ed tad3 $083 edt
,moksi3eq. oda gakinzes1g to omti ads as enatil
173" parties
were
Christians
married
at
determining
the
according
time
factor
of
is
the
Christian
the marriage religion
at
the
There
polygamous
marriages
(such
as
a Hindu
monogamous
marriages
(such
as
a Christian
changed
According jelokskie
the
religion
Calcutta
be
High
Court
that
avail.
marriage
this
at
marriage)
of
were
the
applies
time)
where
after
it aiaiee
Act
that
they
The
of presenting
whether
for:Christianity
or
of no
time
of opinion
rites
as
one
to
well
of
as
the
the marriage.
the Madras
High
Court
held
abje alalya) aetnaa
;
It
also
to
its
a conflict
will
petition.
parties
was
the
to
is
now
become
married
as
converts
noted
monogamous,
Hindus
to
so much
from
availing
The
the
Special
advent
of
tendency
is
As
statutes
so,
is nothing
of
there
the
which
examples
Marriage stated
which
influencing
of how
Act
the
1954
earlier
Act
Indian
Divorce
has
and
the
in Chapter
is afoot
released
every
liberal
there
social
and
tendency
Hindu
a strong
Gobardhnan
v.
Jasadamoni
[1891]
Marriage
I,
any
person
18
Cal.
252.
2a
v.
Thapita
[1894]
17 Mad.
2s) Special Marriage Act XLIII of 1954 Hindu Marriage Act XXV of 1955.
legal
has
21
Thapita
4
Hindu
to
5
marriages
prevent
Act
after
have
parties
becoming
1954
independence,
revolution
Special
23°
by recent
Marriage
socio-economic
latest
that
Christianity.
(iii)
With
to be
235.
been
Act
in India
a great
liberalizing
institution. working
The
are
the
any
caste
1955.
belonging
to
edz to gntsmc0%g to ombt a 4a nolgtiax sift at sine pababereteh, & o*%
atta
cag
Gan Ob wi
gah
7
o2 wciaan 6h eis tedzedw aekntgo to sob n03& ov Rew 271987
nokaiieq: -—
so Ifew es (omit tsd3 38 ogetesen ubolH 6 es dove)sepelsuen evomsgyiog ‘andl
sis Yo smo stedw (sgsitism sabsetsdd
get te.
8 en pn’ aateci avomsgonom
vogeiriem sdi 19228 ydbastielwd) rot molgiist ett begnsdo estizeq Bisd txu0d digi esxrbeM ssi3 tS bbb i Jayod night sttuolse) sia 03 gnibir0s2A
3S som bk 3h Satis avsd
2easivrem
asi34sq
atimoced
vbati
Jnsvstq
“ aajutate
of gntdjon
juooot
et sist
ysdt6 390A sosovid natbnl
yd dads
oe
beton sd 03 won
doum o8
,av0msgomom
six to stared mort
at 31
smoosd oals
aubotH es bsfszsm
-¢iinsijersd9
03 atievaes
S201 opstzysM 32h Intoeq2 ofl (122) Ssewg 8 sthnI ot joots st ezed3 gafsiferedii
adT
.nolsvitjan!
,sousbasysbat
io Jnavbs edi A3iW
snovta
s beassis1
esd dotdw aolsulovses
olmonass-ols0e8
Isacl
boa Istooa
yravs “gntousul tnt al dotdw yonsbass
aij sis gnictrow nasd eat yorebaes Lexedt! arf wod to ea iqmaxs tassel _
-Ce@l
39A spsiausM ubalH sia brs A20L 390A ea:
a
si2so yaa oJ gniasoled moeteg yas .I sasigenid al totites boissa eA
194. or
community
sense
the
Act
provisions
it.
The
of 1954 to
marry
Act
those
an
nature
and
orthodox who
Mohammedan,
Parsi
or
embarassing
by those
monies some
time
amendments
however, passed
the
the
provide
is not
4
Special
to
of
:
Marriage
divorce
by mutual
consent,
divorce
by mutual
consent
24 Section
28.
use
of
it had
profess
religion.
and
in
was
any
of
religious
in
present
this the
1923
Special
all
;
is
Act.
Hindu
the
grounds
iene
:
a distinctive
There Marriage
1928.
is no Act
and of
to be
for
cere-
persons
In
Act
but
and
such
in certain
marriages
Hindu,
rites
Marriage
of marriage
other
and
1954,
which
was
cases,
for
divorce.
divorce
under
yep
Mee
Y
provision,
provision 1955,
or
in
a
religions
help
a
be
to
felt
these
to
through
subscribe
obligation
the Act
there
to
passed
restrictive
This
in
certain
very
Act
and
would
Jewish,
In order
form
yet
its
under
was
going
Christian,
traditional
to discuss but
was
marriage.
by the
of
of
The
which
the
professed
the
performed
1872
and
this
advantage
customary
binding
to make
In
code.
means
1872
not
in
the
some
and
of
of
a special
Act,
desired
been
civil
Act of
1954.
take
has
Act
effected
desirable
can
The
avoid
such
Marriage
legal
Act
a uniform
to some
who
be
solemnize
for
marriage
objected and
Marriage Anyone
toward
honestly
replaced
registration It
who
were
it was to
to
did
the
Special
would
Jain
wished
necessary
if
wanted
they
Special India.
Hinduism.
that
same
who
which
those
in
a step
rites
declaration
the
all
earlier
marriage
the
the
divorce,
Hindus
of marriage
outside
to
constitutes
repealed
traditional
under
applies
regarding
assist
form
may
HEY
for
the
Indian
at
ob@t
atid ol ,b€CL 394 syataiet Laioeg? edg
zeb
ait 10 egedaevbs sdet on snoyaA .albalah ch scien s9baw si
da geed aod PREIS)
390A aaT
ROE
keine
GEARRES ARLES
Shot Livio mroiiay s byewot qote s esdudizancs:s5A edt. IE:
bseesq esw dalw (81
to 194 sgsizaeM Betoeq2 retires me bslseqer #¢@L 20
bns yxemoteu> of3 to sms 03 begostdo odw eubakH s20d? Jekeamof s dguords gniog io anmssm amoe boakasbh ofw bee esthr agesititam Lanobttbsx3: ed biuow
tay bas goibnid
ni eyvizoixtess & 03
yisv aaw S{8I
sdiroedya
wbatH
asoetsa
sears
eetit
dove
ePeOl mI
bar
avokgiisx
o9
oft
stam
easiorqg
eidl.
B8OL
ni 4toA srt
,@9en5
nhetxe.
isbn sorevib
ofa
.sgstitem
bihove
offlw saods
essinmeloa
nt bajostie
to mo?
Istosqe
evisontieth
102 motaivorq on et suedT
se et s1ed3
s rot Sbivorq
bok dove
fis eauselb
smoe
.1svsewor 03 besenq
to aoksarzetgex
of aldsrtesb
gud
esw 3
5M
esinom
si9w einsmbasms
ot sgeiatem
sd3
sml3 -omse
o3 yisees9en
sila yd beoslgst
weiz0 nist7s5
yd gaisesrsdms
o3 bedekw
insee1q
to sbavorg
sobetvorg
yiseenod
Ietoeg®
bos esgsizism
bas prasad
,sshsmmasoM
nl
bib ysis
saorls
.moigiiex aisl 10 leis{
boeestorg
tom
ow
noijsisioeb
Insmoltiibext
Bas ESOL
bagnaw
sia sbhetyo
Jes
gqled ot 19b70
Tol
«9.t
to seu
2
to yas
datidw t2A sgatrreM
ro!
.matubalh xobodj10
,nstderwid
2ew
-So10vib
lo t9A SHT
esw notsegtide
te tod enotatist bos
o7
,deiwst
ed oJ iis?
~s%52
bne iaged od bloow Agkdw ogsiatam Yo. aro
oa
son at ‘aI
.29A sgetszreM Istosqe si3
.39A aids ol ,Jneen0> Laytwm yd sorovib
nsibal sd3 x0 ,2@i 304 ogatszaM ubalH od? nt 2asenco [sutum yd soxpvib
0g. Divorce
Act
1869
or
provision
of
the
petition
joint
husband
and
living
relief
under
presentation
must
have
have
has
be
to
eae! endeavor nature
The
social
has
about
been
has
end
has
the
are
At
the
marriage,
case
or
more
same
under
than not
is
between
so
it
have
At
the
three the
and
time
years
parties the
court
by force
should
make
or
every
the
parties
if
the
for
divorce
by mutual
permit.
social
the
interests.
individual
restrictions
if he
and
been
seeking
Act.
obtained
that
between
time,
they
parties
year
the
they have
consent,
one
on
parties,
that
this
been
safeguard
created
and
This
a divorce
that
The
in providing
to
ample
the
ground
of marriage
court
that
taken
to be
There
to his
of
by both
by mutual
for more
on
court
the
year
Rees
for
of marriage.
consent
show
been
sought
divorces.
one
a reconciliation
provisions
care
on
Causes
provides
district
divorce
separate
circumstances
control.
an
living
1954,
solemnization
cast
thoughtless put
the
duty
due
balance
from
Matrimonial
be married
for
A further
above
consent,
petition
the
the
of
must
that
and
the
dissolution
satisfied
to bring
Act
the marriage,
provision
of
been
to
a period
the
elapsed
should
to
to
English
Marriage
to
for
this
the
presented
the wife
agreed
in
Special
separately
mutually
of
the
even
so
freedom
as
to
avoid
liberty
of
the
desires
after
A
due
and
hasty
and
individual
consideration
ae) Kumud at
Desai:
29,
26
Section
34(1).
Section
34(2).
27
'Indian
Law
of Marriage
and
Divorce"
(Bombay)
[1964]
,f0s
etd? Sok aseus) Lstnomts3aMidaitesastignanal ond
JOA sgehrseM shhdiieehansiioal
ee
ee
snaking stod yd twos toirvelb sds bd. havtoesay thakateng emboli
need svad yedd daty bavorg odd no ,sgstt year offg oN Sttw odd bra bosdauil sven yort Jadt bas srom 10 Issy smo Io bolieg & YoR ylosersgse gnivil gnidese eettteq od? omtj
Shedbee fsusum
esis
aetiysq dxvoo
sit
botriam od Jaum goketvorg eids s9bav Jebley
.3DA ald? sebow
oH7 JA
etssy
yiisusum .egetyte to coksuloseth Siz 03 besigs
to nolisstamelos
sft bos sgsivasm
to noltsinseatqto
yd soxrovth tot mokstieq
bas tsey smo mes
stom
edt mott beegsis eved teum
102 sje1tsqese gaivil nesd vei bhoore
io 90103 yd bantsgdo asd dom esd suaeno> sit Iaiy boltettse od oysad sism
vieve
oft
F
bluode
21 asitreq
sada
ek J2vos
odd aéswied
XS.
mottalitonoser
barteg ses.
YIub
no sess
odd
of3
rodjiit
s Juods
A
28 sunt?
gniad oF yovesbas
to asonsdamorio
ef? bas siudeo
t
fsutum yd sovevib x0? gatbivorq at 3sri2 wore anolatvorq svods oft A
.adasrssat
Levbivitboi
bas mobsex2 bas ydesd
Isubivtbat
[atooe
brovs
of es 08
breugetse
o7 medsi
ased asd s18> oub
ngewied betseta ed o2 tdguoe meed esd sons isd enotioixtess
olque
oxs
s19dT
off to viasdEl otis ,omis omea oft 3A
cottersbteaes
sub
rots
.imganoa
eerlesh
o8 off 21
,ogsitrsam
Istoos
.foxinos
.agotovib resltdguod3 aid 03 bao ‘ne tuq 93
-(1)s€ notso82~
NS
-(S)S€ mobqas2 .
'
’
196. and
thought, It
has
should,
consent,
it
parties
thus
the
to
think
of
any
to
Act
a Hindu
passed
in
marriage
the
enabling
people,
seek
obtain
customs
judicial
Act,
Marriage
and
1955 in
the
making
pre-existing
without
Act
in
divorce
does
however,
Act
not,
that
as not
Hindu of
final for
placed
is not
the
attitude
the
the between
decree the
parties
under In
an
the
legally
absence
operative.
that
inter
to
rather
than
much to
Act,
divorce
in
formality take
the
alia,
This
relating
rural
tu marriage
liberalizing
result
provisions,
driven
of
1955
impact
without
for
consent
circumstances.
the
the
scope
been
by mutual
resumed
; 28 possible.
extent
by mutual
be
Before
has
effected
consent
can
is ample
court
the
customs
being
does
to
with
certain
more
there
the
is
by mutual
intercourse
conservative
under
proceedings
This The
divorce
divorce
remarriage.
even end
once
annulled
passed,
Independence,
abrogate
own
that
Hindu
change
by
and
is and
decree,
The
a great
was
to
or
a formal
marriage
act
that
Marital
after
traditional
released
revoked
reconcile
formal
The went
only
and
(iv)
be
be noted
divorced.
the
P ; obligation
secured.
however,
cannot
parties
dissolving
been
the
and
recourse
tendency
Hindu for
Marriage
dissolution
however,
with
urban
expense to
under-
costly
does
Jain:
to
area,
to
under
their
and
dilatory
purpose.
such, affect
"The Marriage
"A comparison [1960] at 63.
of
laws
not
a view
provide any
for
divorce
customary
by mutual
right
to
obtain
consent. such
28
M.P.
of
and
relating
Divorce
Laws
to marriage
of and
India"
in Kojiro:
divorce"
(Tokyo)
a
sae
Lousum yd -bsase324 eb Sotavth sano sans bevonsd aabveviedd) bluorte’ 91 H+ :
31|,2mpamoo a3 to Inseno Ieunsum yd betfunns 10 belovexsdJonna neswiod bsowasysd nan setmootsini IetixsM sstoob Isnt? sia s10%ed
bsorovib eud3 estirsq
.sgeivxsmey Ismyot s 1833s
yleo eetireq sd3
soltjing add roi sqove olqmssb sted .besesy ef egatriem siz gatvioesatb ae Yobnu bessiq nesd ze trues odd méve bas sikonoost Wussdbeinae
odd of
sonseds
9d9 of bao tsef3 of Jos 02 nolisgildo
jnetxe
Isudum yd eorovib ~ s dove
Isutum sistdo
102 sbivorg yd so1sovib-
,Jom asob J9A akdT
.dowe-es
ters
A
i«@
tom esob oF andgix YVismolevs Yas tostie
,tsvewoll
i
pwad
9 syovrd
by
yne
i
TS
ent
,29A siT
qn¢a
snitel
@4
4.M
a
7
ele divorce.
So,
consent,
it
continues
f English
the
in this
to a Hindu
many
clear
The
marriage
from,
exist
and
and
terms
the
on
Act
the
This
Act
does
not
These
grounds
have
been
which
have
(i)
by mutual
is available
to
parties
under
Act,
1950.
According This
Act,
no
not
it and
an
upon
Act"
of
‘ divorce
of this
nature
Hindu
law,
marriage
doubt,
does
not
of
a Hindu
ordinary
the
analagous
in so
marriage.
contract.
children
that
It
issue
have
cruelty
embodied
in
in Chapter
and
desertion
as
grounds
for
the
provision
of
judicial
the matter
of
divorce
divorce.
separation
VI.
Muslim
law
There
is
peculiarity
days
when
the
is very no
has
liberal
restraint its
civilized
root
in
upon in
concept
the of
him
in
past
Hindu
Marriage
Act
1955,
marriage
Section
13.
30 Matrimonial
Causes
Act,
1950,
Section
l.
Marriage
Act,
1955,
Section
10.
aL Hindu
the
exercise
history
OS)
The
the
are
LAWS
This
The
to
Act
Dip provision
The
character
however,
to
30
of a "Central
sacramental
is,
: this
under
it.
character,
discussed
Mohammedan husband.
divorce
provision
parties
public
PERSONAL
Causes
the
[t has”a
been
of
a contract.
affect
under
a status
not
a right
: divorce
to
marriage.
2t.)
[D]
recognizes
is the first
a Sacrament
confers
to
: : Matrimonial
section
in relation was
a custom
oa: BY) ; provisions relating
The
to
where
was
of
the
of
by the such
a right.
pre-Islamic
practically
absent
and
eiten neues ded fetins0" p Yo witeoelde es
ah
ze d-i ato
em,
ogektiam .wael ubatl fd of gnEbyO004—wea Ge’ nt tom esob ,sduob on ,3DA sla?
'yoediiios” 6 3on Bak Jnsmiio88 8
Lagsiviem ubst s Yo xesosted> Mstuomstsed edd too¥te ass mer a0 .39ex3n05 yieatbro n& ton (4tevewod ,ak JOA eff? yebau ogolxxam off a
nite teri n@xblids of3 poqu bas JY 09 sebtzeq odd mo éuja22 ® azsin0D . stejoeisio otideg 5 nal at s@o70vib tol abavoug TE otisuaqas Istokbul
-it mort
ni
as sokjyrsesb hoe yilewza sved dom esob a9A ataT | lo aolekvoerg aig ot betbodms need svad ebnvozg sesnT
.TV 1saqed0 ot beeevoeth osed 7)
ta)
ea as ‘1
otieut .
o
se
ag
eae
() has 94°)
0itf
-
s81 yd soxovib to yesiem ont at Isasdtl yrov at wel sabsemadom on -idgit s move to satorxs
abiaatint ate eit
33
ak mid eae jninzsest on al siseae }
to yrotetd 38Aq nat af Jeox e3f esi aaa
¢
ee 4
bas angads Mifeotsonxg asw ogeiizam io:igeones besiiivio edt nsw A =
iP.
a
he
¥
7
~~
A
wet =
7 ?.
LOS divorce
was
tendency
of very
and
tried
frequent to
curb
it
structure
of
relics
of
these
old
customs.
sound
mind,
who
has
attained
;
Fyzee
the Mohammedan
P
desires
pegs
without
wee
assigning
occurrance. to
law
some
of
The
extent;
divorce result,
puberty,
any
Islam
but
still
in
is
divorce
this
essence
remains
thus,
may 32
cause.
deprecated
that
based any
y
upon
the of
whenever
:
on
main
Muslim
his wife
Commenting
the
he
‘
this
point,
eer
"The
law of divorce,
whatever
its
utility
during the past, was so interpreted that it has become a one-sided engine of oppression in the hands of the husband. And almost everywhere, Muslims are making efforts to bring the law in accord with
ideas Prior right
to
if
the
To
redeem
to
dissolve
husband
of
married
(ii)
their
that
the
Indian
in 1939
Muslim
law
denied
her,
or
could
made
legislatures
in order
relating
the Muslim
woman
to Muslim not
her life passed
to consolidate
to
suits
for
women do
so
any even
miserable. the
and
Dissolution
clarify
dissolution
the
of marriage
law.
-Parsis
Before
by
the
had
A Muslim
to maintain
Act
under
in India
marriage.
situation,
the
justice."
courts
their
Marriages
provisions
the
neglected
this
of Muslim
by women
1939,
of social
1856
Parsis,
customary Supreme
in
personal
Court
of
respect
law.
In
Bombay
had
of matrimonial
matters,
that
Privy
no
year,
the
jurisdiction
on
were
governed
Council
declared
its
ecclesiastical
a2
Mulla:
"Principles
of Mohammedan
Fyzee:
"Principles
of Muslim
Law''
(Bombay)
[1955]
at
264-5.
Bo
Law"
(Allahabad)
[1955]
at
125.
S90RTTUDAO
tyes |
abllaaiinid
srialiian Aon aoe
—.
eat
ah
7
aae
A a: 338 wat nabonnaiol ait?20 23 ers naqu. bean stam {ft3e sotovtb —_
ae 400,ot cent ‘iiuasy odT -emectaiia io AERA blo cartsSoeka | ; ; , adTevensily odtw eb sorovit yan ‘Citeduq beatedis esd odw Swell
epahOG AME eo: ats osee) “seas em sng
va /eetiesby WACIOL YY ee *¥ :eavisedo sesyt i
vailiay a3i xwvotsdw jed2
‘Se
,sotovlb to wal adT"
F
1
botsiqysint oe eaw ,jesq sda gatxub to snigns bebte-sno g smooed aad Ii
14 43
-bneadaud st Yo ebasd sia at sobres1agge goisem e318 emilsuM ,orenwyxeve 3eomls bad djiw brooas
fave o8 ob goo blyvon sawow wmiiq
notguloseft
sfid ytiasis
fan mal
mal
al wel edd gatxd o3 e310tte ',soktaut [aisoe to essbi
vie memow mileuM o3 beineb badd stbal at ativo> aia
-ofdsvselm
ay
A
,efel of r0Ol4s7
.sgaivism ated? sviosetbh o3 3dgiz
siii tod sbsm so 190 saistolem e2 bsioalgen Sandee odd 3k eft
bosesq
asiwislelye!
bas stebifoanns
sgeiviem to notivloaetbh
oi
narbnil
sid
,nokseuitte
sins mesbet
oT
o2 xsbro mi C&@l ak 390A asgetrxaM mileuM 2o
alive o2 gaitefet wal milauM sd3 to acotatvozgq .wsl mileuM aft 1ebmu
bsitrem asmow yd
etexsd (11) hentevog sisw
,ereiiem Iataombizsm
hevsloeb LtoawoD yvixt of3
io Josqes1
,issy ted) oi
fsolsesleelage aat ao moisotbebiwt
nk
,elersd dcéi #10298 ;
.wel lanovisg eres
yar’
@yag
atenda yd
on bail ysadaod to t1ved ame xqu2 oad desis
aie 38 (221) (yndmos)
.@8f de [eet] (bedadeLta)
|
199.. Side
sto entertain
;
,
conjugal
no
rights
tribunal
shown.
and
needed
Act
and
some
sentiments
Divorce
and
views
1936,
in
the
the
of it
Indian
[E]
CANADIAN
LAW
Marriage
is
it was
the
that
had
cause
Parsi
replaced
felt
changed
been
being
Marriage
by the the
Act
circumstances
Parsi of
1865
and
community.
of
divorce
Act,
1869.
object
was
law
divorce.
of
the
the
It
Act
the
This
to place
Causes
only where
for
Christians
Act
of
1857
petitioner
was
Indian
is based
and
or
the
institution
fundamental
the
tradition
marriage are
as
unit
of western
to
the
root
of Canada's
monogamous
enabled
at
find
of
on
mainly
its
is
passed
law
during
the
on
civilization,
the
till
professes
and
for
mutual
life.
support
v.
Perozeboye
(1856)
6 M.I.A.
348.
society;
the
organization. which Through
and
has
Canada
always
marriage,
comfort
the
same
amendments
respondent
Canadian
social
34 Ardesser
adequate the
was
there
of
religion.
is the
beings
law
Divorce
its
applies
Christian
of
the
the Matrimonial
the
human
Act
«restitution
that
on
community,
This
of
P
implied
marriage
because
the Parsi
stated,
English
recognized
1865.
sfor
aCheietaans
as
is part
or
This
Parsi
in view
of
footing
family
the
Act,
and
and
of
34
dissolve
in
regime
1866,
to
passed
British
principles
by ya Parsiswite
’
authority
was
earlier
contained
maintenance.
modifications
(iin
As
for
representation
Divorce
Marriage
inetituted.
or
with
On
sults:
and
two
ensure
ogaltteM Lasq® ols ~Wiauemog kazat ost Sevgclensesresees i sseall kers addyd beoslqs1 aaw 194 etdT
-2a8E ak hessaq asw 394 sozovid bas
2381 to toA ad ‘aeds aiet esw ti sevsced bas esonsteamustks
begrars
,d€@1 439A ‘sa70viG bas sgalt1sM
edd to wotv nt enolisolitbom smoe bshesn,
-¥2.iaummoo ters? oj
to ewotv bos ejnomiinee
‘petaetsd> al snstsaiadd wits 102 sxiovth
od
ankiyb ease
bseesq
esw 3oA atdT
.@08i
,bstes2 rslirss
.35A sotovid msibal
eA
od1 at benisinoo
siz mo wel matbal ada soalq o3 esw Jos{do att bas emtgex detiisd sit mo yinkem bsead ei 21
{lta
to wel sd3
(itt)
etnembaome
eeze9torg
edt
baa VehL
Jnsbroqee1
.so10ovtb
to 392A esaus)
te 4sa0)3iszoq
to wel debigad ania es gnitoot Lstaomit3sM aii
els siedw yino astiqqa -Molgiis:
20 a
31 bas ~oaBl astieltadd sds
WAI MAIGAMAD edd
;ytelsce
sbecs)
astbensD
to door
9dt
Js notjudisteni
add
oe
[3]
al sgetyreM
.aobtesinagio Eetooe a'ébaned Yo ttn Istnemshnv? odd ek yLtmst
ayewls aad dobdy .qobiesiLivia azesesw Jo aokatbs1 sid 20 a1sq et ows .Sgerinpe Mgud'tiT
.Sitl 10% bap evomagonom ean sgetrxmm bastngoses
e1waas bag Jx0lmos bas a10qqueé Ipudum bat? of beldans 91s eguied neque
ZOO for
themselves
in
the
a richer
preservation
harriape
1tvis
society,
however,
also
in
family
for
that
that the
environment
being
Nevertheless,
is
submitted
societies no
divorce
service
is
preserving as
a
that
fact.
Divorce matrimony
English
Act
when
Law
some
benefits
beings
legal
make
it has
are
not
creatures
it
will
not
society
shell
of
or
of
for form.
the
cannot
to
to have
be
is
perfection
essential
and
it
In almost
all
marriage
fails,
themselves
that
no
longer
from
with
the
in
fact.
reality
but
stable
but
parties
dispense
any
A
When
eliminated
of
life-long,
life.
a relationship
possible
ceased
last
in some
and
a whole,
cg resiemg
of
interest
children.
as
concerned
institution
in’ the
the
to
therefore,
the
society
recognized
either
only
be monogamous and
vitally
the
of
marriages been
is
by exists
society.
legal To
bond quote
"If
the
law
should
1968,
had
the
marriage
be
is
matrimonial
to obtain empowered
dead,
to afford
relief
in Canada.
the
the
Dominion
object
it a decent
"Report
of
the
Commons
on
Divorce"
of
divorce
Although Parliament
of
the
was
one
the British to
enact
which
North
laws
was
America
concerning
Special
The
Commission:
Joint
(1967)
at
Committee
of
the
Senate
and
House
of
of Divorce",
The
Field
of
91.
36
Law
the
burial."
35)
Chote!
of
Commission:
difficult 1867
happiness
empty
should
Before
very
and
has
Iteis’not
themselves
only
Society
by fostering
should
not
Divorce,
law
itself.’
parties
human
life.
for
marriage
rendered
the
fuller
of marriage,
preserving’
of
the well
and
~9CGmdsa.3028:)
"Reform p.
Li.
of Grounds
waajusntc ed aaa
1 lita
Yo Jobteam Sih atvino somet 41 fears ainer ies | aud ,gaol-s2l brs auomsgonom od bivodé sgetyxam daddy ,rovewor wistsos
sidete A .novblitds sy bre esvloamedd estttsq sf2 to yard ni owls istineves@h dud ,eforws es vstooe attiensd vino jon tmemotivas ‘ylite?
i-
2 tsubivibnt edi io eaonkqqad bas gated (few siz 70% raed |
at bas noitostygq
iis teomfs ol
Jon o18
yd aeviepmeds
|
.axot emoa ni bosingoos: need ead souovib estistooe
seitisq eft
10 yisiooe
a
wwatol om jeans ne
Jo baod Jegel ofa diiw aumegetb
.3982 at yiilesw
03 st9d3te, bsisbast al saotvies fis
to Iflsda Iagel yiaqmes sdi gaivisassg
-Yietoos mort betanimtle od jonnso
ef2 egdoup oT
egnied nemuei P seetadsaurok
«stil 20% gasi som [ilw esgsiziram emoa Jarl3 betsimdue et
.eftat sgetriem medW
atatxe
Yo astwiee%1>
,s1olsiedid
,sotovid
spibaas3 tofem sd7 ils to
akwo7d, at yd iftd od3- to | blo od? moxt yLadatgqmoo
sauwe
.1svewod
,Jon ast wal wen PY, a
_cwobiastd sgeitram % 2q9efos wen eidd o2 esanstio Istizem to slqtsaiag oale tud sonstio
Iatizem yino fie antsimgossr
.J9A stisoqmos B at 31
dgvotdtt gntisigetnieth sgeiries s nt tivesr Aoltdw enolseviia evotsmun
aonsupsaneo off
brow
adT
yiatb
asw siqinnitq
CCnnotreroath
.tafyektted at soateq sto 16 .yltaseesosn .3 us
a betebPanes @d wegrof
won of% of yfeasiqmoo
bsllownosie
on besa sotovtb
on
Jadt Bt eldy to
Jon ro? nevig moans szovo gnigatwe
bas Berktebay
,bsord 002" soelq bluow3% Ind3
ageizxsm 6 saw sbissb oF af 32 yJub seodw sgbuf & to ebaad sid nt
to galitvayg of3 ot yokmroltay exom Jada bas ,awob medord yifsvdos esd vlstintisb yitisi
tuo balfeqe InemBilveq
asstovib
12 beveldos sd blvo>
nevowd ge betsb)enos ed bluode syelitem 6 doldw to ebnuotg 48a $19 «twob be
4
if
on
areal
2
repos,
~-
209s, [G]
THE
PRINCIPLE
The
grounds
philosophies legally
for
or
to
marriage
erestaer
mere!
the
breakdown (i)
duties
the
manner
first
under
the
of
of
is
the
of matrimonial
relief
to
freeing
took
the
spouses
are
second
has
is
kee?
available, of
rights
Breach or
him
his
from that
to
the
the
of
duties fault
(Canada)
1968
Section
3.
The
Divorce
Act
(Canada)
1968
Section
4.
The
Special,
Marriace
any
The
Hindu
in England
"Section
Section 1960,
solely
conferred
of
these
spouse
to
upon
rights
well
13. 1(1).
the or
seek
was
27;
Section
based
concept
57A Act,
Marriage
contract.
Dis
Proceedings
‘broken
the
56
Matrimonial
or
under
SS)
1954,
was
were
injured
Act
1955,
Hindu
whereas
1968
and duties
Divorce
Act
exist
of
qiecrea
prior
The
Marriage
is
philosophy
to
and
be
a matrimonial
spouse)
the
ceased
54
Act
committed
two
Approach
innocent
view
has
the "innocent"
Marriage
of marriage. the
of
relief
Special
contract
philosophy
ground
Fault'
reflect
traditional
marriage
sole
1968,
may
The
grounds
Act,
a marriage
termed
the
GRANTED
in which
the
Special
type
Divorce
the
relief.
- where
a right
committee
is
one
matrimonial
‘Matrimonial
by the gave
of
IS AT PRESENT
(generally
in Canada.
matrimonial joint
the
- where
first
concept
'fault'
parties
under
of marriage The
The
on
such
India,
only
divorce
spouse
entitled
In
DIVORCE
The
alte"
the other
down'.
WHICH
viewpoints
terminated.
matrimonial
fault
ON
The
understood
ee
ere
a
{stnomtsteam = bsdztomos aad ssevoqe of? Yo sno oidw -*5 ust tatoom ai (sawoge “tassount" oft bears
to yiqoaelidg edt et boorse off
am
yllersmes) seuoge - 19130 anc
«
.totle7 Ietnomttiem dove of bofdkins —
nadord' yo getxe ot bsesso ash sgetixsm fd sisdw Ce asbiaate exgsirism sgaiuteM wbath bre oe besisod ot esaxedw
egsizzeM Isiosg2? $43 ebay ,sibeT al
ysldalteva sxe
. 'nwob
ebauotg Io sqys ta1tk? sd3 yino antot aid ad bivode mokixensbh ban ytleuz2 (Wilstsesd ,ymobor ,agsx to asonsiio: es hotsex3 to? ebavoxg gaimrot Jo saoqiuq odd 10? etivet Istaomkr3am tisds
of bebmogge {itd tie1b of2 ni
,bedseggue zedjawt bas j;aotovib
atid etsemuencs) od Ineytes [utliw ,sgsiryam avomagid » Jad2 Sioqa7 cele bivoda asxbiirio ban stiw to txoqque-non Iuiitw bns egsitien .s970vEb
to ofier
es best
tive
offs o3 savoge
bazutni efi gailiatins
[ntaontrsam oda 62 golisis1
‘stivet'
sivitieaos
398 adi al moletvotq sd? °awol ot
62 bejasestq ad yam sorovib x02 soljtizeq A" bavotg sdi oo
noissudelen
,sitw zo hnsdaud
sid aonte
s yd Jxvoo
-
a
,ansbaoqess ad3 aad .2asir1em to
|
“ja
tytesiubs bestinmos aad (s) viilsitesd Ieuxssotiod
.ymoboe to yiilug nesd ead (d)
s at begegne
esr to
,sqer
10 beBel
'
dtiw agstri1em Yo mioi 6 dguord3 onog asd (9) %e@
;moaTSeq
toNIJOonsB
feoteyiq iitw seqobstteq ela bodsova esd (bye ay yitevt Isdasa x0 ot 26 sae &sate: rt
.
af
. had
wel
i
2h. (ii)
The
This
approach
perspective marriage
it has
'Marriage
of
has
of
ceased
either
fundamentally marriage
ing
to
legal
of divorce
sociological
in effect
fault
relief
should
because
idea
of matrimonial
Here
the
idea
spouses
as
down,
spouses
is
are
the
and
acknowledgement
"marriage"
the
status
legal
factual
social
from
which
fault
of
which
cannot
fact
remains
parties be
that
interest,
to
FAQIE
iroje
Winehe
controlled
that
situation
or
the
give
law some
alice ake.
committee
the
as
two
in
and
to
stems
to
of
and then
affairs
terminated,
i.e.
be
which
the
effected
sociological
of breakdown
it
could
be
party.
broken
down,
itself,
relief
which
for
through Whatever and
it
reasons
would
a
the
spouse.
The
discarded. around
has
the legal
and
the
a change
in
reflects
their
jurisprudence
cause
by either
legal
state
as
the marriage
sense,
apart,
Accord-
for
revolves
the
neither;
has
living
that
treated
guilty
Where
no
just
a balm
institution
social
this
should
the
through
divorce.
to be as
the
causes)
is completed
unit.
the
or
the view for
spouse of
Where
maybe
is not
the
fail
took
spouses
family
lives
addresses
in
cause
a ground
action
be legally
a marriage
any
the marriage
a social
According
philosophy
(from
innocent
of
as
parties
status.
this
both
the
relief
conditions.
divorce
an
be given
should
of
to
exists
separate
should
erstwhile
of
longer
leading
joint
by one
kernel
no
to
considered
marriage
legal
Since many marriages
the wrongful
fault
the
substance
philosophy,
of
that
in
the be
or
puts
parties
to be dispensed
suffered
broken
as
Approach
psychological
down".
incompatible,
viewpoint
law
and
exist
partner,
hurt
the
to
"broken
breakdown
this
Breakdown"
could
be
the
circumstances may
be
the
is
to
of
sociological
acknowledge
this
cause,
the
fact
social
the
-Ifs
:
.
i
Yo sé@us9 yee mor?) sonmstedue ak “tetxe od beane> earl’ a
on Wguovid Lis? asgolatam yam sont?
“maob asiord” s25tis at aad 3
jaut od vem sgabyxem sdt 03 acttxsq en tonttaq teddte|a $sf9 wokv od? Soot sedaitmmos
-bronaA
|
eet
intot a3 ,sidtisqmoont ectathbeshont
.soTtevib 20% bauodg es ee beisbtenos od biyode mvobiaerd sgatzzem
8 ap beisé1d
Sd od Jom Wk Sotovtb
.viqoaolidg
of7 xo? aisd = 28 Setoqe dnescant ait
40 tnkoqwety abd3 od ait
ne 63 bsensqekb ad 03 otter Ingel
.sauoqe vitkug sto Yo mottos, [utgnore 5f9 lo savacad
-bobtsoetb brvota esi
betsiqmos
aoviovex
ogsiripm
ada bas
fsgol
2k asawoge ows Yo smo yd iluet Istnomixssa Yo sobi
aotavuattent
sis
sisdW
.sente
nada
tisd3 e3oeftex
Isioce
sine Isivoe
6 19.1
s en sgsiziam
yilms? afi
,378qs8 amtwil
ana bas extatis mt sgaero
to state
at
sf3
bas asvil
regmol
yilsgol
of3 sisH
es shanbdee 1d
om bas
.nwob
nasdoxd
sJexsqesa githsel sis esevoge
efdd 03 novig od bluods
,beasnimisy
Isstgelotaoe
tats et asbt
Yo Ienrexd sid
eseixe
dandy hetostts ad bluoda
ennsbexqeltut
bsistive dud
od bluode estiisq
si2 03 guitbroopA
tosmsgbolwondos
“sgatrram" slindwiers
of} Io evtsie Ingel of2 .@utete
Iatsor Levine}
aid od blyod mvciciss7d Yo seven odd amote ydqouolldg elds dotdw moxd asoriesemioito dgvords od bios at peizten xo eat3ieq diod 30 dhus? of2 ,cenas ofd sf “ae revs
aid
tes:vd belLoztnos sd FOnRAS, gag
:
Joni rie 93 at 3! bus ‘haitinovosd eed sgstirea & jsd3 entemoy joe ‘dil
Lestgolotsea Yo enonsst a Meer Sooeosbbe wat al nig
> mY,
aes In
Reform were
the
Act
on
that
sole
Kingdom,
before
January’)
1,°1971,
desertion
was
parties
Since
the
1969
adultery,
of divorce the
United
based
to
on
and the
the marriage
commencement
of
principal
grounds
the
cruelty.
In other
words
principle
of matrimonial
which
the
date
the
irretrievable
ground
for
dissolving
a
the
was
breakdown
it.
seee ee the SOL
subject
In
of
the
of
on which
the
divorce
English
offence
matter
of
Divorce
for
a marriage
the words
ground
the
law
by one the
has
of
divorce.
become
statute
eae
a petition
for divorce may be presented to the court by either party to a marriage shall be that the marriage has broken down irretrievably." The
provision
in’the
(Me reess ore ..a
Diveree
petition
Act
(Canada)
for divorce
"1968
may
reads
as
be
presented to a court by a husband or wife where the husband and wife are living separate and apart, on the ground that there has been a permanent breakdown of their marriage by reason of one or more of the following circumstances as specified in the petition, namely:
(a)
the
respondent
(i)
has
been
imprisoned,
conviction
for
for
a period
not
less
than
Act
1969,
17
one
or
an
three
pursuant or
more
his
offences,
aggregate years
to
period
during
of
the
a9 the
Divorce
Retorm
Eliz.
[1
Gh.
55,
See.
1.
60 This
has
been
Act,
1959.
The
Divorce
borrowed
Secs
from
the
Australian
Zor
61 Act
(Canada)
Section
4.
Matrimonial
Causes
follows:
61
waldebigad 99 abrow xeis0 aE eatin ban mokszoaeb ene
to ano yd saRato Leinoat xem toatgtonixg sit wo,boundenwpoxoeth 2 .soxovib o3 Yo xet2am 399tdue edd enw dobdy sgetayam ad? 03 eottisq off3 omox9d aed sgatzism 4 io awobilse1d sldsvatijexxt sds atab jad sonte
*€ afsadt stugese oft to abrow of3 mT
.3t gntviozatd 20% bmuorg foe of3” ay
sloe aa.....sse” w ao bovorg noltiged s sokd vd j109 eft od Betnseszq 9d yam sorxovtb 102 sit od Liede ogetrism 6 03 y3teq wsdtts " widavstuterst awob asdotd ead sgaizism od fd
es absos
:ewollod
(shemsd)
Ba@L
9A so zovid edz nt 00 oketvera soit
ad Yom sotovib tot nokdittsq 8.0..+s-1f}) stiw xo baedaul a vd 3tyo> s 03 basasastq otersqee gnivtl exs stiw bas basdeud sd3 sredw fesd esd sxafda dads bawotg of3 mo ,.J18qe8 bas yd ssebryam tied to awobdsetd Inemsorieg & gatwolfoy sig to stom ro 90 To moesax nofgiteq
sid mt
beliisceqe
-eeoneTtio
to botisq
srom
,benoeisqmt to emo
sts391K928
se
| oda gatavhb exasy 9913
9 ~ nT ¢
es asonstempotts :yioman
tnsbnoges1
ath of Jasuexuq
oa)
;
oda
(se)
aeed aad (t)
yoi notstolvnos
To boizeq
osdi
8 302
eeel
Jon
af
rar :
VL ,@8CL 4oA axotef so7z0vid sit Bi .38e ,22 .dO IT se2L soe Ses ?
inet oid‘mort heworrod naed pra? Vip
rethicg: ot UN
yidb 8S. es me i
e2
ZS is five-year
(ii)
period
the
presentation
has
been
less
two
he was
more, all to
(b)
has,
against
rights
an
for
a period
petition,
or
a narcotic
Control
Act,
expectation within (c)
the
and
of
not
in is no
has
the
of
as
respondent unable
of
the marriage
has
not
been
the
alcohol,
Narcotic
rehabilitation
than
the
has
had
to
the
and, to
less
no
throughout
locate
the
consummated
and
respondent;
(d)
years
reasonable
petition,
been
hear
three
to
preceding
information
period
to
not
or
that
appeal
a period
knowledge
or
sentence
period;
the
the
or
than
addicted
of
of
years
foreseeable
immediately
whereabouts
to
presentation
presentation of
for or
to
respondent's
for
pursuant
exhausted;
less
the
there
a reasonable
years
been
defined
the
petitioner,
three
of
ten
conviction
have
grossly
as
to death
of
not
preceding
offence
jurisdiction
preceding
been
an
respondent
having
of
petition
a term
the
appeal
immediately
for
which
of
a court
such
for
a period
the
sentenced
imprisonment
or
immediately
of
conviction
which
for
years
presentation
to his
preceding
of petition;
imprisoned
than
the
immediately
ssa
abkakaey, of Yonotsasooen agat Se Ajme
yo? egasiio ne zor nobspihviaes. witbiod) .
oJ 49Wiseb93 bsome3a9e asw od dotdw 10 @issy nex jo aty92 8 tol jnommoslaqmt
" _
hE
ae
ca
‘UMe,
‘ve vite aU
oy if.
—
sonein98 70 ‘goltotvno> foldwv seategs . 910m | : :
:
fssqqs 09 dhehnoqes1 sd? Yo esdgia ffs teed of, noksakbaksw{ gatved J1vo> # of
|
oa
;beteverdxs aeed sved [soqqs oe dove e788
sams tsd3 @eaef Joo 14 bolisqg
& YO? ,aad
(9)
ad? 46 mobiesneseng oft anthsooxq yLoistboumt | -fodools Bi bstokbbs ylaaczg
seed
,nokstieq
aitooxe odd mit bentieb es sitootan B 10
sidsnosast om at sedi bas ,33A boxed nolsstiiidsiss 2’ taobnoges1 344 to notisyoeqxs' tholtsg sidessasio?
sldaacessi
6 ntditw
asd? ee5{ ton to bobisq & Yo? ,rM0t3tI9q sd
rs i
(9)
ens ent beset ¢ibsatbemnt ‘eisey soins
7
a
942 to mobisinsesrq (om bed aed ,aolaiseg
(phil lininanCe
palleae i
Za
the
respondent,
than of
one
year,
illness
the
for
or
marriage
has
a period been
unable
disability or
has
of not
to
less
by reason
consummate
refused
to
consummate
the marriage; (e)
the
spouses
have
been
living
separate
and
apart
(i)
for
any
reason
other
in ott. a548.
bin, i
Gas
bw
p
-
:
;
}
feaw3son bas sqet .S
me oqet —bavotg)
eons tio
attw 03 sfdattavs bawio7g) eatae7
qangri .€
Wiel
.6
oe Ms;
A
.2
jnomrogtiqml
«9
sonsiseqqsetd
A
lo soxnoh Bw Adtw eiqmos of swlist aifigina {sgutne0s to nokitusiiess
.8
(ooxovtb | 103 jon bas notistaqs2
Boy
tnsamoataqal .2
se diiw vigqmoo o9 sxvitel to makjuvltess Yo sa7aeb hbaworg) eddgta Lagetnos
iT
Istntbot 16% bayorg) yileu7x9
yileuxd .2
dove noqu gniwe1b
.
sesd3 at
oft ta9d Sivods astuisie
sdi diiw Islobbef sMQuotild sgesmon ef) Yo jldms sd3 at jnomentte1 mevig ada ni anotaobbetiv{
.txeono0
wal
common
tsdijo at anolisieiqrezat
nt sotovih to ebnvoxg mommoo of3 ted3 anoeast sesdi sot et 31
ddiw tesitsged beeanoekh s1s te3qsdo 3x90 add ak sbsne) bas stbal
Ienotsibbs ods fn evens detignd bas notheasd (nstbal od ‘voasze39x .ebsed stexeqee
tebay beeavoetbh s1s era 7
i; Jieh
; ph
‘
a
iene
iy ; Poy @'yhs
&O ©
ine
1 6
ves, 404008
-
Fe
‘heal
8 7
2 ste
#4
“4
> rar
= :
219. CHAPTER
Grounds
Marriage
have
considered
view.
but
religious
an
it as
Marriage
concerned,
the
is not
one
ordinary
such
is not
which
and
of
monogamous
and
for
break
down.
Once
empty
shell.
It
social
is
and
to most
well.
yet
happens
few
even
society
and
Canadians
marriage
and
should
marriages
nothing
is
today
which
Indians
Though
some
relationship.
with
organization
life, this
past
a contract
has
as
Divorce
contractual
in the
only
significance
family
for
VI
do
have
people
this
is vitally
a deep
is
the
be
essentially
fail
gained
Few
foundation
and
of
irrestrievably
by preserving
the
Searle
"For most
people,
divorce
is a step two
adults take when their marriage fails. Although others obviously are affected, the impact of divorce is seen largely through the eyes of the man and woman. Actually the penetrating roots of marriage are exposed through the effect of its disintegration on children, relatives and friends. The fact is that MOS Elsie eesierers . divorces occur in families with children. As a result, one out of six youngsters grows up today in homes either anticipating, experiencing or reverberating from divorce." Divorce
beginning
as
is
of a "new
a correction
divorce nor
commonly
seen
life''
of error
is
an
adjustment
create
an
unrelated
- as
that of
as
the
end
a final
sets
the
closing
"books
relationship
future.
of a relationship,
Divorce
that
the
of an unfruitful
straight". does
legally
not
marriage
Actually erase
dissolves
the
past
the
1 Westmen
and
Cline:
" Divorce
is a Family
Affair"
[1972]
4 R.F.L.
310.
-
Tae
ee
slqosq wet »qidenoljele1 (sutonx3205 PEERS
a 5 hehe re Sieg Jos et ogataxsM ays
bl
G
id
Sti svn ios ovewo}banSnagsid of daue 03h tesehtuaas dived
-
ach Seek anes Vllssiv af yotooe dotdw ditw jostino. a ies. son et ogetraM wsiv i valent?
te
qash s aipibane® bas eastbal teom of asd ‘dod: sno aod shamtsonas whe LP
Yo motselnve?
adt et ogstiiss
dguodT
.Ifow 86 vonsaltingte ewotgtier ney
Uifsivmeses od bluode videveliajeerzi
bas robtasinsgto ie
bas [isl ob esgetitem
sit gulviseaiq
smoe
yd bantsg el gulsijon
Bo bas lime? ae
Joy ,stil zo
bas phar
ansqaqsd atd3 son0
{bine et 30
.awob dard ,
Ai
.fistis ysque
ow? qoJe 8 at satovih ,sfqosq Jeom 10%" -afiat egsicrrem ris? asdw sist etiubs »betosiia oxs ylevolvdo aterito dguottIA yleogtal mase eat sstovkb to josqmt siz -csamew bos asm ods to esys oft dguoxds te atooy gmbiextensq oft yileutoA Jostite
oid dguorls
baecqxs
oxs sgsitzyzam
wtatblids so coltsigs3atetb jeqd
ak tos? ofl
est{ime?
st wwo3s0
.sboatavt
eestovib....ec¢so380m
to tuo eno ,.jiveet 2 aA semod ot yebot qu eworg Yo gntonelrsqxs
6.aeybitdo d3iw ststagavoy xta,
.gntssqtolias
" go1ovih sit eqiderottsiss
83k. to
bas asvijtsier
& to bes sf2
Tar
1z9dtis
mort gakiarodisyet e8 osee yimommos
nu
at sozovid
- sgebras@ [vitivtinw oe to gttteol> [anti s an - “stil wen" s Yo gatnatged
vileutoA jenq od
.“adgtet3ea adtood" of3 eise tsd3 roxrxs to Golios1102 & aB
aweze jon asob janis qtdanotssles
a agviveetb vlsgel
sorovid
to Jmemjautbs an et sot0vkb
aeeaay boaeleiny 6 938973 “977
7
Zee marriage, the
affected It
law
but
is
give
empty
eae
an
shell.
the material
discuss
spouse
grounds
discussed
and
intangible
a married
wife
of
woman
may
person
that
who
petitioner
in
this
chapter
to remove
on which
between
the
what
himself court
or
may
grounds
does
herself
grant
the
from
the
a decree
of
below.
has
ae charge
and
been
proves
opposite
person.
As
the
is not
burden place
insanity
incapable
of
of
consequences,
but
time
the
: a warning
being
must
place
then
shifts
between to
in
of
nature
was
the
the
the
of
: given
the
‘ in
that
and
case
6
and
Cline:
"Divorce
is
a Family
Affair"
3 Clarkson,
Glarkson
[1930]
143
LeT.
775.
1 All
E.R.
600
4
Redpath
1892p.
v.
Redpath
[1950]
92.
6 Lid.
spy sir
Carles’
butt,
+. , at
94.
(C.A.).
husband
if
wise
to
prove
of
that
Ibid.
that
a rape
Yarrow
a defence
its
a
a husband and
so
or
consensual,
wife
2 Westman
between
his
from
he was’ act
be
course
appears
act
the
but
the respondent might be
the
appreciating
not
took
It
the
intercourse
aac
Bogen.
that
against
of
will
by the
if at
proof
sex
her
her
adultery
of
sexual
intercourse
guilty
intercourse
on
of
consensual
of
that
took
as
a person
raped
the
intercourse
committed
be defined
married
co-respondent,
5
bonds
ADULTERY
Adultery
the
to
injured The
are
realigns
sie
proposed
to
divorce
[A]
it only
v.
to
insance
a as
to
be
probable
: ; insanity
P which
:
,
y
:
'
rl
af
i
“
ae)
:
vy
7
.
-
Nea
he:
a
i
-
me
@
‘
7
af
;
»-
+
.
ode
:
, a2
1
wie
;
: : y
seas
oy
:
|
ar
I
7
a e ?
i ae
pmetinie 7 Meta evo 92iyshat Bap:
YAM F3u09 ofa, dohiw ao ebavozg oT Ha to s8320b§ Ane7g
meted Pepereth 8B Kae
-)
SBaTUMA ta
asewisd saiuonrsimt [euxes Isuatteaco> es bentieb od yan ‘yre3 LubA wi 10
bnedeud
snag antad jon x52
8 ,isvensenes busdeud
attacaqo
od Jeum saxvosteini
5s YE dud
© vzaxivbs
to dostsq
si
aA
io viliug
B bas noaisq bolixem
8
iéaxsq Beftxen tad ‘to eilw
ton
el beqst
meed
ded ondw asmow
bas sttw ald neewied soaiq doo? seywoomint dad? vied. tonotsiiegq jed3
svo1q ager
oJ satw edd of atitde 5 to seTu0S
-V worrsY
nara
Yoo1rq Yo captain old -3n9baoges1—03
mot? arasqqa
I1
o&
sidsdorq dotiw
vitnnant
aaw of Jon sf3
to yiinsaat ‘odd jed3
“youxeY
Yo amis of2 38 = ietadinta to sgi1sdo
azt bas don edt to s1cten jesi3 "eens jada at aavig
{
sii
° -gnsbnoqeet~as sit yd xsd mo beat immoo
6 69 soneleb & ed tdgtm iqebmogess edi
sd oj #68 Soneant
adui dood sarvootesiat
atl at ifitw vei Janlags
|
93 gntsetoorgas to otdsqnoat guiezaw S
esw
i
7
mF
@] =
i
Ripe ant. 4
-bidl "3ie33A yilesd 8 et soxovid" tentld bas eet Tey -ett .T.d €AL (08CL) moadtel).v ad | : ry
ity ek Pi
ae
00a
Aa
aaa ILA I Kocety daaaten pore
beer os ay er
;
Le
would not of
entitle
an accused
necessarily
a ground
the marriage;
voluntary
defence
sexual
sufficient
and
to
a suit
specifically adultery
provision
Act,
justify
was
the
repeals
the
ground
for
charge
divorce
>
and
or
sexual
other
Divorce v.
was
is
have not
short
of
on
would
the
ground
been
committed
during
cil eienenioane
of
complete
Acts
of
intercourse
may
adultery.
for
under
divorce
the
in Canada
Divorce
'laws',
developed
Act
it would
prior
to
1968
1968°
appear
is
before
Since
that
applicable
the to
1968°
the Act
case-law the
Act.
Chouinard
Brunswick
Redpath mere
sole
had
Chouinard
the New
falling
a finding
all
must
incontinence
to be a ground
which
of
adultery
intercourse,
to
continues
in
for divorce,
ante-nuptial
Adultery
on
a valid
on a criminal
adultery.
As
be
be
to an acquittal
court
a case
followed
concerned
the
whether
P , gratification
can
decided
an
amount
English
attempt to
under
case
to
adultery.
the
new
Divorce
of Redpath
commit
v.
adultery
12
y Patou
Vv.
Patou
[1347]
28
Nez, LR.
o40.
8 See
Matrimonial
Causes
Act,
1857,
applicable
in Alberta.
7 Divorce
Act
(Canada)
1968,
Section
3(a).
10 [2969]
-LON.B.R.
[4950]
SIVALL
941.
iit ER:
600%
12 This
15
question
"The
was
essence
also
discussed
of the offence
in Orford
of adultery
v.
Orford
consists
[1921]
not
49 O.L.R.
in the moral
turpitude of the act of sexual intercourse but in the voluntary surrender to another person of the reproduction powers and any submission of these powers to the service or enjoyment of any person other than the husband or the wife comes within the definition of
Vaaultery'.,"
i
Hidde)
|
at
dais
sehr :
gnizub be2aimms aved sud seu yrotivbs (sonovtbh yo? bawowg 68k =) Wig to each ‘.quotoliwe Jom et samaatiqoont Letsqua-eaae jsgatzzsm on ysm sniwooTsial siefqmos Yo ttoda gallis? ,setpcotedat Leuxse yiesavlov \
tisilubs io gntbak? s ytivest o2 tmetotiiueed
‘a
®
Saaer sx0ied shame) at sorovth 102 bnvorg aloe edd esw yxs3IubA
Jak odd santa wel-seso
odd
Ceaes 229A so'toyid sf3 tebmu bavoxg a ed o3 esvatimos bas
Jedd
xseqqe
ony o2 sidsotfagsn
bluow
1k .‘awsl'
redjo [is elsaqet xifsolitosqe
ef 8801 oF 10olxq beqoleveb bad dotdw yresiubs no
-294 sotovid sf3 to solsivozq soTOVIG
wen
.V tjagheH
edo
webaw
bebiosh
Yo sepa dakignd
sass
ols
s of
-bisotuod) .v basatuot>at
bewol!lo?
22005 Astwenv7a we sda
vistivuba thamos of 3quetdts os iwdsentw benrg0n0S esw ‘bas
. 395A
Th seqbon
Sf cretivbs 0% Javoms os> noliasttkiestg Isuxse stsaiio pe As
ah 14
Mey —
(O88 .A.I.5.M BE [NABL) wosed -¥ aogay Pople
-B9790IA
ot sldsoliqgs
,S¢3l
.3oA aveusd
=
letnomiz3ah 992 ee
(ade morjose
B
ns
e ,B3CL (sbaasd) 395A e270vid 4
* ”
4 n dp
- Lae AGT (2aet]Me
Zies There to be the
must
proved.
act
The
itself,
gratification the
be at
adultery
isolated
does
of
to
act
if
on of
it
do not
that
the
more
The
amount
to
its
adultery
for
must some
adultery.....
It
that
the not
penetration
repetition
is
the
act
of
adultery
be confused
with
lesser
act
is
inception
is material
one
taken
should
but
that
the
event:
of
sexual
It may
of be
an
view be
only
the
other
that
sufficient
that
for
a decree is
amount
living to
act
ground
be a ground
party
cannot
a single
of
for
relief
judicial
: divorce
for
in adultery.
living
in adultery
provision.
only
that
be
the
to "living lives
eee
not
should
therefore,
period
the
: LS provision” rules
the
can
proved
some
has
bond
ground
of
defendant
than
India
adultery,
amount
over
in
present
adultery
acts
conduct
is no
of divorce
the meaning
Thus, India
commit
there
marriage
a decree
sought
A single within
not
the
: 14 separation. be
not
legislature
infidelity
may
if
to
penetration
eee
The
by way
partial
attempt
and
and
least
a successful spouse
living
in adultery".
in adultery with
The
is
ground
in a divorce
in adultery.
A plaintiff
has
to
prove
repetition
of
adultery,
phrase
‘living
with
in adultery'
in
Isolated
who
a course
case
alleges
of
the
the
was
same
or
considered
ie. Chouinard
v.
Chouinard,
The
Hindu
Marriage
had
sexual
supra
note
10.
14 Act,
intercourse
Section
with
any
10,
if:
other
"after
person
marriage
than
his
dhe The Hindu
Marriage
Act,
Section
13(i) (a).
16 Subramaniyam
v.
Ponnak
Shiammal,
A.I.R.
[1958]
Mys.
either
or her
41.
party
spouse."
{suxse to i368 w9ee9! ome tabi
Io noliqoont og et 30
ne od yom JT
on at sred3 2 bas ane
.,...vt0aLub, o2 Jnvoms. Jon 290b molijeotitierg
neve Iatradem et tsdt pokati at jon eq bas or yxe3iubs sia”
‘hp
| 408 botaloat
to jos sigate = iad3 wetv sd3 node ead atbat nat stvislekgsl sfT igtfler
101
bovorg
istotbut ss%0vib
tustolitue
9d jos
bluode
sot baworg s 9d ylno bluode sot ss19sb
8 dads
aslys
brod sgsitrrem af3 09 yiifoblini
jud sotevib
at gatvil
ai sess savovth betsloel
o3
tavome
tonnes
segolts odw Ittimielq A 6f3
to satvon
to sm@Be Sf3 ditw
bsishiesos
esw
s svotq ,yxsaluhe
*t nolssxeqes
bayote 9i3 m0 Jdguoe ed yam
,s10tsxted3
«vz9ifubsa
.nokeivorq
343
6 nt bruorg ([yteasoove
.yvistinbs mi gmivil
30 sezosb & to yaw yd
“l otatvors Jaseszg sdT
‘Yasitvubs mt gaivil at yixsq xsdic sit ted yrsatubs
»@
2o Jos slgnta A
to guiasem
& 9d yloo neo. yredlubs
et’ sevoga
sda
jada bevorq
edi aoldstw
,eulT
at jf Ib etbal
."yreilubs nt satyti" 04 aavoms goa ob e208 of asd vrsifube to molititeqe:
'y193lubs mt gatvil’
mt aevil
tasbasisb
Ajtw bolisq smoe
sestdq sit
on
a2
1svo
jad3
dJoubmoo
coated eno asi 930m >
OL ston s1que .biamtvod .v buantuody LAs
(
“iteq tedits egetryem tosis"
i Doe 2
:it OL notioe® ,29A oaeit1eM ubatH “lonvoge tod yo abd asd? moeteq tsijo yne djlw Sexmavetas TT oT
if
|
tess ‘okde8 «29hogeirieM ubati tT bi( Ps Sabin
oe
ia verteyeasHhowy Ls on a
,
a)
ae
\
~ 6
wes
saan
+2
ae
i. ia
Ari
~ Bele
ne!
hd
r¥ sar ‘45% a
sae
aghy
‘ 3
Fi i
Dias at
a great
length
by Vyas
"Living
J.
in Rajni
in adultery
v.
means
life
or
from virtue.,
lapses
distinguished
The
judge,
after
of the Act
considering
"The
the
intention
follows:
course
from
one
‘Is living'
cannot mean 'was living'. If these are to be construed in a narrow way
purpose
as
a continuous
of adulterous
two
as
ey,
Prabhakar
words the
is frustrated." old
of the
aeROr
tase
legislature
observed:
was
to
relieve a spouse from being tied down to an abject and agonizing life with a partner who was living in adultery with another DEFSOM sc c1e and this intention could be defeated if a spouse, proved to have been living in adultery about the time the petition was filed, could successfully plead from temporary cessation from such life immediately prior to the petition as a ground for refusing a decree for GiVOrces..«n... SOM Chem orner Nand tt is clear that too loose a construction must also be not put on these words, it would not be enough if the spouse was living in adultery some time in the past but had ceded from such life for an appreciable duration. It would not be possible to lay down any hard and fast EULe about Lie wa... Ore Mist) snow that the period during which the spouse was living an adulterous life to the filing "ef “the petition that “fe ‘could “be reasonably inferred that a petitioner had ground to believe that when the petition
was
will
Thus
if
only
grant
dissolution
filed,
there
of
is
she was
a proof
a decree
for
of
living only
judicial
in adultery."
a single
act
separation
of
and
adultery, not
marriage.
i) Ale Rie! ab95/.), 5
OebOm.
li.KRyelel OO.
18 In re Kista
19
Fulchand Maganal, A.I.R. [1928] Bom. Pillai vy. Amrithammal, A.I.R. [1936]
Bhagwan
Singh v. Amar
Kaur,
A.I.R.
[1961]
29; Mad.
833.
Punj.
144.
the
a decree
of
court
: fees
os
:
_:Y
antad
satw00. auovatinos s ensem yresle sn0 wort boratugatsetb as otht
im
gnivil ef sausatv prec grtee re gbrow sesd3 11 .'gnivii asw' seem rpc = ——
'
Vane
ond yaw Wor1en 8 ni souzdan. of02910us " bagsxteur?
thavisado
Bf
we.
Bee
ef JA
”,2efstxodjus bio od3 gatysbtemo> 19328 ,egbut sa? igo
03 esw stpislatgel
sd3
S70
TR a
to colinmeijnt sit"
i
03 swob bet? gnied moz? sevegs s avaties isa31sq s fidtw sill antsinogs bas dnstds se sedjoce
ditw ytetlubs
ad bluos
noltesint
at yotyil asw olw
atid
:
bas......moe7q
|
feed svad o7 bavotq ,seunge « 2h betasiteh edi smty of3 tuods yrsilubs at gnivti vilvteassoue bluoo ,balt? ssw motatiaq dove wort soliseess yisi0qms3 mort baslg molaigeq sit o3 z0lsq ylsiskboaumt siti vol esxo9b 8 gniauts: 10d bauorg 6 as 3 boar xorso sit 00 nose eves BDtOvib foljoutjeanos « seool ood Jed? rasio et at ,sbtow sasd3 oo jug Jon ad coals Jaum @ew sevoge sd3 11 daguonms sd jon bluow
Jeaq a3
al omt3
smoe
yrsilubs
-
at gaivil
ts toil sit! cove mort bebso bed Jud sd jen bluow 211 .aoljsexb sidaloszqqe 3661 bas brsd yos mwob ysl 01 sidbasoq woe Jeum 3f s02....,.... 3t 3ueds salut sauoge edi doitw gniwb bolraq si3 Jad? s#3 02 siti
od Bluos
3
auorsiiubsa
os. gnivil
ten2 maftstisq ad
esaw
to gaklt?
bad zenotjigeq s dads bsetisini vidsanoess1 solitieq sdt medw jed3 svetisd oF bnuorg
",vretivbs J1vo2
of2
,vyretiubs
ot gatvtl
io gos signie s yino
20 estosb 6 ton bas ootisraqae
exw ofa
belt?
aaw
to toorw «& at sisi
Istotbu{
2
eudT
roi satosbh s tansg yino ILiw OL gshr ian to notsuloeerb é
Tike
:
yr
7
Coil .A,1.
iG
dew
968
:
-
.mod C2 ae
£
)08
. bel
dal baw
u ra
se
ca
I cea
14
Pave 4 a
'
|
224,
in
(ii)
Standard
Since
matrimonial
a divorce
regarding
legitimacy This
1968,
changed
the
and
adultery
burden
of
adultery of
of
for
stated
have is
laid
was
so
the
Supreme
same
The
rule
of
certain
the
of
beyond
coer
the
and
where
question
no
in
Divorce
e.g.
doubt,
v.
Smith has
44
'
not
of
where
a finding
a heavier
circumstances
on
continues
civil
Act
a child,
such
proof
in other
"preponderance
bastardizing
reasonable
of
in Smith
purposes,
petitioner;
standard
as
Court
since
effect
before
arises)
(i.e.
1968
For
on
the
after
proof.
the
suits,
purposes
by the
true
of
civil
most
offspring
be proved
This
are
applicable.
would
must
is
remains
is
proof
proof.
causes
was
standard
probability'
of
Proof
proceeding
proceedings. before
of
the so
criminal
after
the
standard Divorce
iRo eo
Lord eres
MacDermott stated
the
"The
in test
the as
leading
case
of
Preston
Jones
v.
Preston
follows:
evidence,
no
doubt,
must
be clear
and satisfactory, beyond a mere balance of probabilities, and conclusive in the senge thhiateit will SaCLely @
aT
adi aevloval ss10vtb mt solsa
q eda 2o mudede Jaoyeint oideq od? bos esttze
|
6
ad ton IIisde bood sgsirism sft Jad? estivps2
sbtes 99a w so yfsdgtl yutupat golrte duorsi gan ob I tedd
bbs
,bluode I.....-.
.aqsdreq
non sesd Sieizqorqas sit o3 as atobentoym
magtb ygolsas yas no tootq to biebasie ....wel Isatmtr9 edd.movit euts sat 3q9008 diod ydlw .om o1 amsea 3I 28 ,moesex - brioyad toorq ~ bisboste I[ersnsg smae sid gud ,vgofens yas ot jon esti 3tduob sldsaoess7 siz at ada Yo sonAtvoqmt sifduq baa yiivetg .benrysonmoa et saso does doinw ditw esuveet etmsbaogast~-o2
sia
babxewa
102 tesnoliigeq sd3 siaensqmos +S. Soubnooele
ai
visiqmexs wold
sf3
.egutisel
& eB Jon
o2 Jud ,Jovbao2etm 102 Jnsmietnog
yd benisiave
ced sfe
xo sd yxotat
asgameb
Jad
jon
ats
e'xenokiiaeq
es
02
ded xe etd o3
¢llmni
yisslubs nt eegsmsd
9ri2 jeatsge attus
ad o3
beadsivolss
os mo
gved stil
jsd3
é
yrutat
t1ud of
ods
so seol
of3
sedibabelaseeras *, ewollot
Jud
ero ta
cetesd i
bas ,sonod ¢"4e00%4 biak odd o3
* »borebfenes sd of
emo beteeggue ted of bis sgslyzam
to notsusisent
odd Yo Joor sit ts esdtiaje yrstiubA
brvera bilev 6 es besingoosx nosed Isitomommi
nt ogbelq stesd od? .reftons
of smo
(tt)
emia mori ead
sonaupsenod
.sotovth 3qa928 doirw astietvoe seodi at soz0vib xot
ylevteuloxe
ods ak bnod sgstzzem
qesd [liw esizxisq oft taeda
ra
sap
A
-
age '
AM
?
ey)
a ROR daaaboat .vsri ~€@2
XLS
[28@L]
rot
sssnezt *
‘i
es
xeamnat
i!
ee
BAe A husband either the
he
can
have
a husband
other
or
or
should
she
wishes. 'living
isolated
acts
isolated
act
adultery.
isolated
of
advisable
adultery
The the
to
committed
[B]
RAPE
AND
(i)
Canadians
Prior
were
husband,
in
;
:
Committee
grounds
for
offences husband
now or
the
the
be
enough
to
and
far
so
whether
society
it
language
of
the
instead
of
‘living
the
that
the
statute
of
for
is concerned
conduct
or
society
by inserting
it
the
"unnatural as
in adultery'.
at
offences"
of rape,
sodomy
and bes-
grounds
for
divorce
to
a wife
but
not
provinces
and
British
Columbia,
and
after
Matrimonial
constitute
the
is
words
the
Causes
26 that
these
insistence
grounds
for
of
Act
1857
was
in force.
' ‘offences’ ' be retained ’ either
divorce
at
spouse. the
to
These
instance
of
Special
Joint
Committee
on
Divorce,
1967,
at
a 1930
The as unnatural an
wife.
of
an
conservative.
26 Report
the
a single
offence
conservative
statute
if
a ground
a course is very
so,
consideration
India
as
is
this
because
constitute
in general of
into
for
fidelity
immediately
in India take
Should
of marital
and
suggested
adultery
recommended
divorce
not
husband.
OFFENCES
prairie
where
standard
case
does
one
Law
available the
in Ontario, Joint
UNNATURAL
the
background
adultery'
to 1968,
tiality
the
the
but
a divorce
is
difference
cultural
"has
and
should
Indian
change
to
It
is
a wife
from
is not
in adultery'
any
and
right
this
offence
act.
wife
depart
the
But
make
Considering
wife
of adultery.
The not
one
have
requires
it does
but
105.
innocent
wild
aaa
ak gas of3 ren
-aofetw ole 0 od
odd notiaobhaao2 Jat oled tom eaob bas "yxs3Lubeotgnivil" esxtupos afgnte s Jedd stboI rot botesggue et yT .yrsalubs 20 ajos be3sloat
zo? bryotg « 93u%tden0 03 dguons od bluode yxsdlubs to toa bodaloet | banteonos et gonsito of as x2 oe brs yredtiubsab ssasiio adT .yrosiubs faa 10 Joubson to S210 -avisevreenoo
et 3t yiehooe ebrow
gs at Jt xsdiodw sonox922b rar salam jon agob jt
yrev et Larsnsg
svktsviesmos
oils es
ald:
yd 93uja2a
.wrediele
at yiatooa metbnl sf?
to bnvorgdoed of2
of aatvil'
Isxutico
lo sygaugnel
to baasent
.308 beisloak
edt antrsbrenod
of3 sgnailo oF sldsetvbs
'yretlubs
beizimmo> esd’
2iQMSTIO JARUTAMAY vA SHAR [4] wel netbeae) ~eed bas ymoboe
,saqet
to "esoastio
Istutsanu”
& 6% 30m jud siiv 6 oft Sot0vtb tot sbovotp O€0
SdT
1Sy9e
bose ,aidmylod
debitza
oft
f
,Bd0l of zolxd
es sidalieva
bas asonivo7q
(t)
sisw yitlat3
atrtergq eds at ,bnsdeuri
Sov? nk aew (280 394 edaveD IsloomtzieM od3 sted ,okrada0 at
ge bantsies sd ‘eoststic’ saodd idx 25shnameeses a929 immo sakot
fevsieney 2e6fT
.onvoge radJid io Semetelant add ds sot0vEb 102 abavorg
sieatiieetdn SO eeiediat! add” de) sotonth sed ethoxy etudidkeps woe sesnedte {sUiw tohandel
-
ZO «
By definition, since duty
it offends to
in
one
included
only
is no
this
Brunswick
sexual
the
there
overcome be
against
reserve
In concept,
“rape
the
real
the
and
the
"The
in
of
other
commission
use rape
of
the
and is
other
spouse.
adultery consent.
offence
Barristers
definition
'adultery'
the matrimonial
of
the
the
of an act
of
there
that
adultery,
following
the
between
so
offence
nature
for
the
difficulty
offence
suggested
solely
difference
consent
in the
‘exclusive'
organs
conceptual
in
is included
of
is
that
To
rape
Society
could of
New
of uhhescae
of sexual
or
deviate sexual intercourse voluntarily performed by the defendant after marriage with a person other than the plaintiff (petitioner) or with an animal."
The present
definition offences
is
of
comprehensive
adultery,
enough
sodomy,
to
include
bestiality,
all
five
homosexuality
of
the
and
rape. Since
under
obligation
it
is
to
the
contract
cohabit
legally
not
and
may
in
fact
petitioner
but
it
is
the
purposes
Black's human
beings
of
the
Law with
consummate
possible
respondent
be
of marriage
for
Divorce
Dictionary each
other
his
that
to
sexual
this
is
marriage,
a respondent
forcing
submitted
the
there
does
a matrimonial it would
'rape'
attentions not
his
appear
wife.
upon
constitute
an
that
The unwilling
rape
for
Act.
defines against
sodomy nature’
as
‘carnal but
copulation
thereafter
by
continues,
Zi Proceedings of the Joint Committee. List of hearings and witnesses. No. 15, Feb. 4, 1967. Page 804. Also Joint Committee Report, Pe LOD.
‘yaaatubs' Jo,sone80 9fiatbebivfonk ak le Estoomtsani sfi3 Io oxii3na 'ovteutons' odyCooeueeenid -sauaqe tedja od3 0 eau sid x03 visloe enpgio Leuxss avreaot 09 yaub jada et yretivbs bes eqex noswied oona7922tb Lex xine oda .3qeon02 al of
.dnseao> el sisds azsdto eft at Sin aieiaiatti eekak syed3.snonk
bluos sqar lo sanalic edd tsd2 of yiiuolRth Leusqaonoo atds smo279VO
wot Jo ydeloo® aysdalyisi ad2 ,yr9iLubs Io somadto sdz ob bebylont.od ‘ 1S deeatnbe Jo ootdialtish
gaiwoliot edi betesgque
Aotwanuw1d
%6 I[euxse to 395 os tn nokeekmnos SAT” ¢iimnsnuloy saxvootstat isuxse sjabyoh sgeitiam tstis inebesish afz yd bearxotreg Yildniaeiq sis oad tedjo moe & djiw
" Iewins ws d3itw to ( sd2
to svtt boe
[is sbulont
yitisuxexomorl
of diguons
yyalfstiasd
.
tatteq)
svtansdstqmos . ywoboa
vio
et notitatisb
vrsd Lube to esonstto
siT Ijnsestq
«SBT lsinemizieam 4 et stads ted3
tesqgs
sdf
bluow
,eiitw ald
antifiwny ma coq
sgekizam
14 .sgetrtism o3 ‘aqet'
of
anoliag3is
xo? sqat atudtienos
Siammweaoos
Jeshrogess
Lauxee
26 tostino>-e2
thaw sonte
bas sidadoo
s x91 oldkeroq
o2 aolssgtiido
tom yilagel et 2F
eid gric1ct ed tos? ol ysm dnobmoqest
jou asob aid?
Jado
beiiimduaat 3k stud rsH9ljtieq
.39A soxovid ef? to sseoqzuq ond yd nékaefuqo> [sevso’
|
es yaobors eonkish vismolsold wel e'dtosfh
+8ounkinos wsttesisd3 gud ‘sivian sectags tage Hogs Adit agreed ‘memo
|
:
PAYAei
"But
strictly
that
is,
man
or
sexual
boy
In
English
the
petition
'
petitioner's
the
wife,
husband
admission
Act
performed
by a man
of
by penetration
law
28
he
but
the
;
on
of
to
spouse
committed
on
real
the
the
consent
the
between
Corroboration
was
of
of
'pederasty',
another
29
and
such
as
would
the
for
where
of
Divorce be
consents
proof
act
and
and
are
not
spouse
an
would
a man
There
to
showing
eae
the
sodomy bar
to
petitioner
with
her
see
her
petition.
eee
the mere
insufficient
evidence
3)
of
at ee
Medically
: £35) of homosexuality.
person
to
of
other
iheersapede
intercourse
part
provisions
or
burden
respondent;
her
the
e
is barred, is
equivalent
of the anus."
petitioning
of bestiality.
1968.
upon
the
amount
one
only as
where
submission
in view
Sexual
form
not
offence
offence
be used
consent
mere
may
In Canada,
this
as
it should
(or a woman)
4
the
act
the
sodomy,
is
speaking
an
animal
constitutes
psychologically
wo
cases’
: hitherto
required
to prove
see
9(1)(c)
an
it
is
under
the
an
extreme
the
allegation
: Divorce of
28
For
connivance
also
or
Condonation
"See Djv..1 [1964],
Sec.
Divorce
Act
Chapter
VII;
P. é5 (. Aa)
29 Keogh
v.
Keogh
[1962]
1 All
E.R.
472.
30
Pastev.
rast..|./945]
Divorce
Act
S°WoW.R.
06 B.C.5.G.
ae
(Canada)
Section
9(1).
Se
See however O.W.N. 381;
F v. F [1950] decided prior
2 W.W.R. 54 (Alta.); Warden v. Warden to the enactment of the Divorce Act.
Bye)
Reuben:
"Everything
you
always
wanted
to know
about
sex"
Ch.
8.
[1951]
eume eda 20 motssxiensg yd (namow 8 39) yod 70 mem
9“
hi
»
edd
ak
2s
nn
sci th
03 atrisenos sevoqe gntaotstieq adi o19dw Ser Mekignd ofa nT gt > eqdodd ,ymoboe ws BF nokiig gitiwoa 40% toorq Yo nobwd od3 sud ,bet sia stsiw bas CS. snabnogies oi? mo et Jaeetoo
rsnolsi3sq
=~
q e’tsn0oritissd
Yei dak’ ymoboe Yo Joe ne oF 218q ted no nokeelmdue stom ,SItw SH Bk Ce mntsiseg yet xed bluow es doue tnoen0> sism suid © 3% goxovill
Yo somsbiys
ois
[sex oF Inyoms Jom yam biadeud
Yo anotelvorg
gnstobiavent ed bluow radio sa
sf7 do wetv nt
,sbaaso ar
10 sevoge sno to aotaeimbs beditimmoo
she-Yisavoge-1sink
eli
sonstio
|
af3 aeduttyenos Lemtns os bas cam a neswied seryootesnt Leuxse an et Jt yllsotgofodoyeq
emaygxe
gotovid
sis yeboy o3yed3id
.vitistieed
bas ylisatbeM
e2ees. on 918 stot
to nottagoli{s as svorcoF batitups:
Ef
to somatic
vihisuxszomod to sm102
Jom esw nolisiodorz0D
~.80@L 350A
es pITV yedqed)
JoA sot0evtd
(5)(1)@
.o92@ ese noldsnobaod
1 sonsavinnos
|
10OF
(.A.D) 28 .¥ [A90L] I .v I 992 oels
5
es “SW 8-0 LIA £ (S8@) dgosdt .v daosd 0.2.0.8 38 .H.W.W € [2d@L] gest ‘kien fe -(£)@ aottos? (sbens9) 390A sat0vid aM
«SE
eC.esta) SE f,W.W S (Oder) F .v Ixeveword 992 siz
to JaomioenS sit of rolxq bobiosb : (BE UW.
229% bestiabityrprior
to
view
sone
of
the
against
Divorce
engaged
indicated
At
the
now of
not
clear
not
of Ontario
cases
on
by His
eae a restrictive
one
that
lesbianism
Divorce
new.
Hindu
is
the
included
available
within
on
of
within
Judge
that
time
the
confined
surrender
statutory
the
to
the the
bestiality.
to
the
the
of
Reville
the
tentative
"acts
of
sexual
definition
of
v.
members
organs."’
term.
indicated
Countway
between
the
annotated
R.W.
basis
term
Court
meaning
Act,
im
privilege
for
attached
the Divorce
At
“today
co the Ontario
Honor
38... is
involve
is not
included
suggested
which
The
In Cv.
be included.
SehisVis+so
the meaning
judges
produced
would
on
act".
was
Act.
adultery
homosexuality
sex
the
for
Divorce
of
(ii)
34
of
lesbianism
Countway
is
the
in a homosexual
conference
definition
same
Act
transvestitism
compilation that
2 of
self-incrimination
The
“has
pam
1968>" buUtMiEtisedoubelulepe
It
of
is
Section
clear
3(b)
2°"
Law
Morea! L925
12 Dek Re 1105)
35 Sica
36
NoOLe.
oL.
Grant Gf 1956-57120 W. Wea 352.
a7 LCG
Tez OR.
e603
19701
i) Dek
tod
mio.
38 [1968], 70 DiL.R. 2nd 73. (N.S.) sHomosexuality is\treated in Enelish law as a ground for divorce only if it affects the other spouse's health and this amounts to cruelty. pee also C v..C [19/0] 2° N.B.R. 2nd 1672 38A
Move Act
Mel lo7 2) reads
as
24 D).L.R.
lis)
(Patel.i: Section
eich)
of
the
Divorce
follows:-
"respondent since the celebration of marriage has been guilty of sodomy, bestiality or rape, or has
engaged
in a homosexual
act;"
the
at alicaianteoenl at LuA2dvob asidt?au "Ba ogo!iviag‘exoaudnde on? aame sok wate Bon
.
aky
308 rotsamaatsont-o: deen of erblabseed 10) s{dsliavs tom at yrstivbs 93
sia ov bodon2s6 gninessm oda no ts9fo\ gon el ink sorowhd sfT
2 ot ." 35m Leuxgeomor&!mt bageans dad” ott 1p .v s100d obwwono tbat ,a1e? sif3 Yo gninesm sro pidtiw bebulsat Jom ssw mettivesvensi3 betao 4aA' hedwoons eda , 490A sotovid oft no esghut ofradn0 20 sorsiaines s13 oflive®
pedeokbat
.W.M ogbul
ronoH
20 sotisitqmoo
etH yd beoubotqg e9eso
sviteiaes off emt? iad3 9A
.bebufoot ed blyow metnsidesl seca
v yswinuod to diand 943 no botesague yttiavxseomod add to arsdmem neswisd
8 at 8€ aw3ngod
ef5s" o2 beamlines eno svissiajaey
"“.emagro Lauxse oft to t9ba9Twe
veef> at 32
(d)£ sotszns2 Yo aobytmkieb edi cidiiw
oft eviovnt
bebulont
to aotitatieh
doidw xse smss
at mektnstdasl
tsd3 won
ASE 54 sosovld od3 Yo wed ubstH
(£5)
ae -QOLl .f.0.0 S [éser] A .wA
2 LE ston sxzgque. i}
‘
3
SZE .A.WLW OS [T2822] D9 .v oD
ve
(26 .bE Med. T POVGL] ;a8N 1.0 S$ [eaeL]
BE
ak 223 el yitiLeuxeeomoh
ee
(.2.4) €% bas .f,1.0 OF [89eL ay
of} etosiie gf U ylao sat0vtb x03 bavorg & as.
od band's
:
-ifsuts oJ ednvome etd brs. rained «VBL boS .4.4." & Dobieadh 2 .v 2 ols 992not PIG
TEL
i=,
‘
ahi
,0 08 (ster) Mwy sonoma 30 (de mottoe@ ¢(.0.9.9) alt Aid ~:awolfol as ebsex end Bay.
-
to sokswsdoie> edd ponte gnsbroqest" adT
saeds
of9 ak espmetio
of smae
esoaolto
.yilours
as esonstio
Isatmii
ebnuorg [student
gotevso ,sitw
[sugos
sAT
to enoltatvorq
efd3
Lagel oF
Lemisanu
guriotet beteeggue (rt) g Josyg
,2ifw 8 93 satovib
vam
trvoo
siz
Jada
310
besntog
ad yom, jt AQ
usito edd 3ed4 havoxg adi co ,stbol at basdaud « 03 jon Jud
esd Savoye
,~iisnokaso20
bisdeud 5 ,yevewod x
.
a
»
Lie
—_
——
|
P
einai
.ysiletiesd aha
40 ymoboe to yittug nod
CC
A
°
LL
rg .
_ odt ubniH rah eget aay ergy Hok3992 392A fi,
WE
)
\agme*
«eld GOhR
-< aptaast O80 29h eneun Satoomts2—M del tant a
| ;
Ad
"
;
i>
Fy nivel
:
hen axe oot stedLaconia
Oe
RES has
been
able
to
has
been
guilty
wife
charged
with
the
criminal
law.
male
female
and
obtain
the
only
same on
that
the
footing, the
divorce
and
either
that
the
this
because
woman
can
nature
under
the
distinction
Moreover,
in
allowing
but
of
has
sodomy
wife
spouse
in
India
should
spouse
and
should
been
to
by her sodomy
may
a female.
now
be able
has
a wife
that
a male
be
between
committed
recognized
between
his
The
no
act
other
cruelty,
makes
law
males and
of
Canada
of an
of
practices.
acts
of
ground
husband
ground
the
relief.
between
ground
unnatural
Act
the
the
to
be
placed
obtain
guilty
It
of
a sodomy
bestiality.
[C]
BIGAMY
The bigamy
Criminal
or
the
consortium
marriage
this
or
of
the
Hindu
the It
should,
Marriage
spouse
right
however,
Act
is
Criminal
Indian
Penal
Code,
Sec.
Code,
Sec.
240-245.
470-475.
to
whilst
form
an
Penal
and
have
each
of
party
aoe
India.
It
spouse
additional
thereby
of
not
to
breach
A purported
constitutes
this
is
enjoyment
contract
conduct.
that
= make
exclusive
a valid
on
be noted
again
43
in Canada
a third
42 Canada
Indian
a duty
by any
with
the
persons
imposes
of marriage
It
upon
other
also
and
offence
right
exclusive
mode
right.
Gane
a criminal
subsists.
violate
such
of
a matrimonial
marriage
under
Code
polygamy
conferred
of
on
on
of
granting
not
divorce
or
in
place
the
such
Divorce
person,
on
of
The
her
suggested
or
of
on
is
relief
commission
a divorce
husband
take
obtain
a violation
ground
ground
for
in
India
divorce
emma gids io etoe sit tetany
‘nip eo
wal Isotmiys d noowaed nokinabgetb on #osw sbansD 90 39A sot0vionT gotinetg ai ofeme?) bas’ elem
Aelisy
of .ssvos 10% w # gitwolls o3 Sth
2d yd besatames ymebos to jos ms io bavorg edd ao sotovitb 8 mbsido
Ysa Yooboe Jedd beskmgoos: asd wal sotovib sf2 ,moeieq asd no basdeud
+1
sfeos’ @ bre ofam s nsswied tud esham aeswied ylco Jon sonlq saad bepsiq od Wod Biwore sibal
at stiw
8 nisidn 03 slds sd bivode
ymaboe,
esl
nesd
To ne
baa basdeud eda sens bojassque et
sevoge
seucge
tatlio
edd
+anidool
bre
sedjia
jedi
ads no
omse
bayortg sf3, no sotovtb
svatistiesd to
mmnots [9] 3A bat O63
sved
sviauloxs
30 Josvdnos
A
tes &? Gann’ to shod Isatmt79
oft
oF
emcateq
moqu
sdait
Ietnomitisa
& be114 tn09
Kiley & taliiiw eeuerra xsd30 9f3 Yo mukiyoenoa
finasad of dom snvoge betyeqtuq
ody
bos sbans) at ssnstto Isatmk3s s ymsyyloq 10 ymegid
.abbT
udersd3 2b 32 tosmyotas
fsast netbal
dass
.itoubgos
no yiub s aepoqml oats 31 to oot
yas yd jidgiz sviewloxe
nokisiory 8 essuiiienoo yjisq brid? « dilw sgatxtam
sikal at bavotg ets
.etetedue
Janz beton sd ,rvawod
sHi7 to
sgeiiiem
efdj qisioty 0
20 sbom 10 9gelizam
,bilwodea 31
.tiigiy doue to
sor0vrb 1od Bauer Isaotytbbs sa ategs ef JoA sgaiziaM ubnil 9d3 1sbay
on)
7
PAG ILS for an
the
wife,
because
the
ney
eres
it
is
only
she
who
can
bring
action.
[D]
CRUELTY
Cruelty
perhaps
matrimonial and
each
case
have
been
have
not
must
which
This
to
former
is
in
view,
some
way
by the
a general
statement as
existence
one
of
aimed of
of
the
of
of the
light
reasons
thought. question
or
not
is
to
constitute
appeal
the
law
45
spouse
the
to
own
; is
the v.
the
on
of
other,
must
was
was
F judges
complained
fact
Gevinneee
intention
fact
cruelty
the
acts
there
of
particular
why
the
5 question
at
all
cases
That
cruelty
in Gollins
relating
its
whether
. a mixed
of
is a question
of
that
the
by one
offence
cruelty
and
that
court
in
; unity
cruelty
erroneous
summarized
is
cruelty,
legal
controversial
considered
: without
defined
The
the most
The
be
F decided
amount
is
offences.
circumstances.
of
under
and
be
to
this
made
46
conduct
held In
law.
and
be case may
be
L.R.
-
follosse:”
"Only generalizations
that may
safely
be made
to cover all cases of cruelty are that the petitioner must show actual or probable
44
Hindu
Marriage
Petition...
Act,
Sec.
13(2)(i):
tan(i)...¢eethatcthe
(A wife
may
also
present
husbandshadamarriedeacain«s
a
.2% od3 yd -evosnoxze
sew mokjaoiat
oF
gatiatot
wal
od3
10 taosmojsje
80. wolfo®
besixsmmye
enotjssilarensg vino" to eseso [fs i9vyo9 03
bem od vyistse yem isda sii jadi sxe ytIsu1> efdedorw
as
Isireacg &
wore
xo Isutos
teum t9n0l3tisq
;
os © ubath & vaewn oefs yoo otiw A) s(t) CS)EL .o88 .35A egstireM ea hetazam bed boedaud odd tad3 veers G2) sees OLItISq ah ay 7 :isqusjeda, «4.2. £08 .q ,d Lov
3b .8af .3T 3 .we 1 (828) gabdmoT .nea?
d
© (€aen) aut a.t.w
| esto.
ig? bunghi “ia i
re le injury to life, limb or health and that no court will give relief in respect of mere trivialities or incompatibility of temperament. Thereafter, all that can be said is that much will depend upon the respondent's knowledge and intention, the nature of his or her conduct on the character and physical or mental weaknesses
of the (i)
Definition
The of
term
numerous. in
of
the
this
Divorce
the
both
term
the
of
case
Concept
incapable in
law
Reform
concept
English
the
is
In England
Further,
from
and
cruelty
the meaning
that
spouses."
the
of
Cruelty
definition.
context
relating
Act
to
of
cruelty
the
in
Divorce
and
the
Ad
use
statutory
hoc
particular
19697"
cruelty
law,
of
laws
of
interpretations cases
are
was
much
confused
the
term
was
Act
of
Canada
and
case
so
dropped.
is different
laws
in each
province.
(a)
Physical
In English case
Russell
have
caused
v.
and
law,
prsseiice
"danger
to
apprehension
definition
has
Delaney
Delaney
v.
the
Cruelty
test
required
life,
reasonable
been
Mental
limb
of such
rejected. 1 the
of cruelty that or
the
In
British
the
stated
respondent's
health,
danger".
as
bodily
Columbia
case court
the
this
decided stated
famous
conduct
or mental,
In Canada
first
in
should or
a
strict under that
the
the
Russell
49 Divorce
Reform,
Ace)
1969,
Eliz,
Ll,
Ch.
55,
Sec.
2c).
50 (1807
JerAcCs
395,
nes
Hl.
aye
(1969) 2 DvL.R. Srd S006 s20L. (OnE) 4
303:
See
also
Knoll
w.
Knoll
(1969)
ground,
6 D.L.R.
‘gtem io tosqes: at iotls .
|
do vsElidr:
astit.
od mes jad? Lis oe
.
-Jnsmer9qms3
ef? moqu bnogeb Iliw doom anents
add .nokinetal
yed yo
|
",aonsiqe of3 “ol
talvoljgiaq
to sinned
ile al ot9d std3
Yo gotnsem 97 Yo
-evoxsaue
o# boautwos doum eau yslows> of gnitslot wel odd basigal nl gYote# sotovid
esis *Peaer $2A
aew onmad ona fo sav
-bequotb
iy
.notitntieb to vsitadwoth ek wiidess mrsd edt
sed BA
918 a9¢e5
|
etn
[atnen to taok eyed bra
asereminsw
enotisiaiqzeiak
ainas Tay
bas sxbsiwomt e*
si3 no touboop
|
P
sit nt Jad?
jnsysithb et sbsaed to goA aov0viG sia at ytleur to Jqaon0o adi ,tedszuT doa
mt ewel eeso
bes awsl ytotujste
bas ,wel sas> dekigna dtod mozt
-soniverg
bos (sofeydd (s) yils {sj09Muy) nuomst si3 ok begete
,wal datland nl
as yolauto Yo Jess ot
bilvorta doubaos ¢' aoe bnogest oft ted3 botlupsy i & xo ,letnem 10 ¢Libod
,dalesd
dotvte elds sbens2 pl
teeaut v Lioeent 9e59
,s2if ot togneb"” beeus> syed
yo dati
."19gmeb due
to golensdeiqqs sidsnoesez.
.bowoxg 99 iebtiy bebizeb ses gexti oft ol =.bssoaterx aad aad nok intiob Liseeauk sid Jaa
batsse
ofa fe, pied Vv Seine
Ixv09 gkdmnitod deratei
ve s(o)S vos? .22 hd IT shia ekaer aah aro 9A ‘apd gal ‘yf
8 (ROCK) Link .v Lioat only.sez 4,0
ae
an
rie
ae eet -O.A ae”
£06 ‘anen fa
234. test
of
under
cruelty
this
Manitoba
continued
ground,
Court
applicable
under
Zalesky
of Queen's
in Canada.
v.
the
act.
2
Fee
Bench,
He
new
stated
In
the
Tritechler. that
the
second C.3d.,
Russell
case of
‘the
test
was
decided
not
stated:
"in considering whether there has been proof of cruelty I have not been hampered by the definitions relating to cruelty which are to be found in the veritable legion of cases which preceded and have followed Russell v. Russell. There is now no need to consider whether conduct complained of caused 'danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mentally, or a reasonable apprehension of it, or any of the variations of that definition to be found in Russell. In choosing the words "physical or mental cruelty of such kind as to render intolerable the continued cohabitation of the spouses’ parliament gave its own fresh complete statutory definition of conduct which is a ground for divorce under Sec. 3(d) of the Act. Of course many of the principles laid down in the former cases will continue
to be proper This under
are
the
free
English has
been
case
has
Divorce
to
law
become Act
reshape
on
the
or
1 Dele.
for
law
approved
3rd
on
leading the
471.
of
case
in Canada
proposition
cruelty
symbolized
be CHI6o)
the
1968
cruelty
followed
guides."
without
by Russell in almost
that
being
v.
every
on
cruelty
Canadian
bound
Russell. province
judges
by the
Zalesky in
| 1
AeA
=
aaaio babtosh. m
far
| vie
¥
A”
7"
i
as ot
n on
¥
k . na
.
;
oo
:
Wd
8
ae saissaw .
NOPEDS e
atstdsttage
ae
_
need eat oxed3 teddorw sareneuns at! bosoqwar nosd jon ovad I ytisura Yo toor
sr bs
ertokt iat
93 guisalor
yitoux>
sidetiver sda nk baveot sd of sved
bas bebsoorq dohdw aseso to ‘sokgel
;
.v Elegeu bawollo?
.LisaeuT
won wt staff
taubaoo sesitedw rebleaos 03 bsan on .Stif 03 togdsb' beavso to beaksfqmos |
pB 16 ,vileinsm 10 yitbod ,diised to dati
2 yi
,31 to aclemsdeadis eldanoasst
to yon zo
ed of mobtintteb Jai3 to anot3etisy eds at bravo? .{fLeaaut abaow edd gatecods al ' Laoteydiq 10 [sinem yilau1> to dows bata beugt Ia05 ant sidserelosnt
7.
03 as
wsbasy
jnemetizeq ‘usauvoge af3 to nolssaitdeios Yro2uIsIe stolqmoo dast? mwo Beth svag & 8! doltw
bayoxg
touboos
to motiintish
efi ‘to (b)E .292 tebnu eotovkb 10x
esiqtumbsg
suttinos
aenbol ada
@sibaasd)
.Liecsud
ysesioS
nt
sonkvorq
s3
d reba rot B3@l 3nA sot0vioft
suonstw yvileu1s
ao wel ods eqsdeat ot 981i ou
moidteoqorg
yd bovoed gnted
att seem aldT
sai3 smoosd
antbest
ai sea
tad?
ei
r9mt0t sid al awob bial " gebtug isqo%q 9d 03
Iltw esaso
so BhenaD
vilsuto
saxvono
Yo yam
sf3
7
.39A
70.
.v Jioeent yd bestlodmya
vYavs
yiisuis ro = gation
-
jeomls at to bevorqqa 70 tavatxctacand ad
AA be ate £ «ever
9.
if
on
|
©
ih
wai
a
wp ieeeane
ve
¥
re
¥
atin
ia
Pas a’
an
[ ,aeu
Lae
ak. ca
.
:
pis
i
va]
b ae
7
}a
a:
LE alan é
7p
7%) 8‘in
;
Gonadae
Wright,
J.,
of cruelty
under
cases
for
and in
over
an
acceptableinterpretetion
the new Divorce
that
interpreting
was
find
simultaneous
suggested
cruelty
to
courts
Section
Act’in
3(d)
of
be the
the
Laceyv. paeeye
consideration should
of
of
guided
the
by
Divorce
concept
the
Act
held of
following
in cases
the
situation
is now very
different. Under the Divorce Act time has been set to work for those who feel that they have made a mistake in marriage, and
53 Hunt v. Huntie/ 1970] p/SiWaWsRe Loce(e.G.): Novak v. Novak, [1969] 68 W.W.R. 524 (B.C.). Paskiewich veyRaskiewich; (1969)e26D. UR .«drd 622
Bev.
B.,
(1i970)e8eDulL.Re Srdy,
Knight v. Knight,
(BeC.).
260R(BAG.).
-(19/70)-73W.WeR. 2321) (Man. )« Goudie v. Goudie, (1970) 9 D.L.R. 3rd. 90 (Newfoundland). Vogt vy. Vogts (1970) e2eNoBeh.gead 87 (NSB .).. Coleman v. Coleman, (1970) 9 D.U.R. Srds 632 (NB. ). Chouinard veeChouinasd , (1969) 2nds 941", (N. Bec. Ac )¢ Bustin v. Bustinge (1969) -1-N.BoRav2ndg496 (N.B.)% Maund v. Maund, @GI969) LAN. Bak. e2nd 5547.9 (N.B.). Hawthorne v. Hawthorne, (1969) 1N.B.R. 2nd 803 (N.B.). Van Zoost veeVanedoost ss (1969) e/a) ebokKsestd 3isr (NS e).
Bonin v.
Bonin, )(1969)
55D sLeRe
3rd
wo339 eMac.) +s
Herman v.. Hermanga(1969).3uD.LeR. Srdeosa2 (NyS:)< Dodge v. Dodge (1969) 1N.S.R. 241. Clarke v. Clarkéso(1969) 2 OeReg6/65 (COnte Sis);
lacey
v.
Laceyye(1970)
170.Rs
(Ones):
Resnick v. Resnick, (1970) 1 O.Ry O24... (Ont. Knoll vw. Knoli, [1970] LOM si. ReeL99S Ont s). Mayberry v. Mayberry [1970] 11 D.L.R. 532.
Austin
v.
Avstin;)
54 ti Oi] alle Oa
eeoe
19/70,
73
WeW. Rae289
CcA.)..
(Sasky) .
three
cruelty principles
in which
alleged.
"In Canada
concept
CES
03
sibel
ssn af
s 9 + rialon cai? bietWO eoki v wooed at ery se
vilouts Yo dqson00 aia 20 nottersbienos 4
36 Sl |
ae ae
_ aslqtonttq gatwolle? ela vd bobiug sd pivots:soo 20 boJesgque baa) rqisaad at dokiw at eo659 BL J9A gor0vId wus 2! (wewotaoe®gaise
- sbegeta asw y3ieuxe yay won el polttauile aaa toA soxovid off yebat smtd esd jesid Isat ofw seod3
03 10% Jxow ae
a
bas ,ogsixiem at sdsteta s obsm
.(.9,8) 82f .8.W,W CS [OSer] .javi.v soul ¢.3.8)
(0-8)
652
.f.W.W80 (0d@L] revolt Vv
.v ae a S88 bat 8.1.0 S$ (C80L) ,dotwableed .(.D.8) 08% bre
.H.5.0 8 (COVEL) » A .v
88 (PdOD),
G.d.8) dah .FLWLR
.(.9.48) £AS ‘WoWEX (20!
.dotes (ine) O02 .bx€ .f.0.0 2 (030K) Cena IS .5.W.W EN (over) . .AiTa
(inal basoiwel) O@ .bxé
~
8.0
2.)
bat’.
£08
@ (over) » mex
ooxq Jnelorive eo3u3!
yisrem x0 ayoLovi3? jon bas “ysdgiow Lomvs" "9d seum soubeog saaq ewode, es dove
» Somers gas Shida 7
".¥ etbuod al
thajste Ivo) sasrqe? bnel hove twat oat ye
$3
yititdstefosnt
; A,
eee
¢3qa0n02 wor & Pere
i }
,
sii anted jess snnatthagte
tol .../otw ‘bre oom ae tadjegod stkt anit et jon 03 egtsl e dove tsdi yee
:
|
Li
notjose edd ao juq od of et nofistenqissot 26 davt dads
tivess
edi
Ja, svizis o3 28
belyzam wed to at:l ebat? sauoge 9f0 #8 moo? as of St anixd ago yods .sidsteiaini 9tt1 yititdsisioint isd3 et sokskeoqg edt .bne edi mozt
gedto aid to toubaos
svixeb teuaq
216 aviidoe sd ysm joubnoo eldi wow .yIteq hoe otleredifeb to tatenoo apo Jf ,evieesq brow ¥d dnomteorx3
[ii
bsvisonos
yllute1s9
movi seixs ylisups mao 32 xo ,bseb x0 od sx0de nit nso 31 .jselgon aeslidguod?
eton ikw ¥llsups aoieelmo
gatdiemon sd ot ned sisf3 Jud
to e398 at bnvol
dotiw sGqy tnsbnoqes1 s to towbnos add al sldersiownt e1vjv? to atalo efi aistave oF $i agaist o@ od elds Tl. .csescwne noljeiidedao
sselo sd bivode sonobive ‘ats jada avotvde ak ad bivede aotiqmyess yess on ;ossupabs bas ead tivoo edT .ji ojat re3n9 oF bedatmteq ‘Udsnoases %E dowbnoo sft tsdt betielise ed of” Jnds softeufonos
641
or
.nokeetmmos to
03 ebasl
; yaves
8 4
bereabrenos
[itw siiw bas osm es w9d3sg03 stil bavptinos " ~xenotiiisq sd3 xoi sldetsiotat
emossd
F
[OMS
acy)
:
;
ent
=~
ug’
uv
exw a502 antwollo? 93 tasdi2 bled eved etxu0> metbansd oft noltstouns 93 most acted et tetl ekdT
Pele ae Paes ae a os Sa}
i oiasiad Yo sangietaes & 10% siltved dgbut. ed banegeat 4A satovid os Yo
1 oh ne
oda
hae
|
ed
fl
(| 208@E anttu
ei).
I
Ae! aGh
ek
ners
>
wel
sagby
a
"s"
243. le
Assault by husband: decree granted.
Herman
v.
Herman
[1969]
3 D.L.R.
(3d)
471
-
Heavy drinking and foul language by husband: Delaney v. Delaney [1969] 1D.L.R. (3d) 304 - (Husband drunk on wedding day and seldom sober thereafter') -— decree granted.
Heavy
drinking
and minor
assault
by husband:
6 D.L.R. (3rd) 304 - decree refused, but Ceieer See'(.19/0] LOsDeL.RY 199 (Ont.):.
Knoll
upset
on
v.
Knoll
appeal
[1969]
to
Ontario
Assault - heavy drinking - threats of leaving wife by husband wife a paranoid personality: Bonin v. Bonin [1969] 5 D.L.R. (3d) 533 - held to be cruelty but decree refused on ground of condonation. Husband
killing
suicide:
Nv.
both
children
N [1969]
of
4 D.L.R.
the
(3d)
marriage
and
639 - decree
Practice of coitus interruptus by husband: 2 0.R. 676 (S.C.) - decree granted.
Clark
then
attempting
granted. v.
Clark
Transvestitism by husband (Sexual perversion impelling an individual to wear the clothes of the opposite sex): (a) v7. Coleman (1969) 3 D.L.ks (3a)eZo8 (b) C v. C [1969] 2 0O.R. 786 - decree granted.
[1969]
Coleman
Suspected homosexuality; husband leaving wife to live with friend: Countway v. Countway [1968] 70 D.L.R. (2d) 73
male
Wife leaving husband and four children; husband reacts by drinking heavily but rehabilitates himself. Unnecessary for husband to establish that wife intended to injure him. White v. White [1968] 69 D..Rs (2d) 60 (N.S. Ct. Lorsdom. yC.)_—rdecree, chanted,
LO.
Violent of pain
assault by husband; denoting excessive suffering, severity and mercilessness, and not mere displeasure, irritation,
anger or (2d) 941 Lh.
dissatisfaction. (C.A.) affirming
Chouinard v. 1 N.B.R. (2d)
Chouinard [1968] 1 N.B.R. 582 - decree granted.
Paedophilia (Lustful attraction to children): fear of consequences affecting petitioner's health - future cohabitation rendered inteterable,e-H: v.eH. S(NtS. 7HG. J.) Dubinsky, J. [19/70] °9 D.L.R722 - decree granted.
English
cases
which
may
be
relevant:
Liles
Unnatural Spicer v.
soy
Refusal of sexual intercourse: Sheldon v. Sheldon [1966] 2 All E.R. 257, but not when inability to copulate due to bodily infirmity: vege SO Sea Ald ER O10 sant epee ob GG ea sve. Bo 2685 and see: [1969] 2 Alta. L. Rev.,.239.
14.
Communication of a venereal disease to wife by husband knowingly, wilfully or recklessly - Browning v. Browning [1911] P. 161.
L's
Constant
squire
and perverted Spicer (1954)
and
[1949]
unflagging
P.
practices by wife 3S All E.R. 208.
nagging
5l-at™/2.
by wife
with
another
of husband:
woman:
Squire
v.
' d
1
e
~ 198 (be) aida € (8801) sawres sv nemo aviieeiea a i
an
7
Jy
I 7 ‘a _
iy)
anauala ee
gi tbaadeud yd szausaslir oi aden Bart bale Ghatttsaaa ee
vy o«
ia wb
:busdeud vd tivsees tontm bas ‘goidetyb yvask wel [eser) | 7 .v otxeia0 of fmeqqs no jgaqu dud ,boevte seic9b ~ AOE (bre) 7.1.0 2 pe .8.0,0 OF [OVAL] s52
.(.300) CL
to xissudd
xd otiw grivest
~- boedaud
(be) 8.0.0 2 (RVC) okdok .v niaoi gnitqaotte sedd bein sgaiamam sid hojnsimy seTosb - 063 (b€)
(@ger] airsfd .¥ Axel)
+
i - tluseeA
& stiw
tystisnoateq:
tud yifeuzo ed o¢ bled - EEC
osinsb
io bavotg fo beautes
- gatdohyb
.A.9
sfotteqobnos
. | Waren. ut 8
108
ey
hing
eS
6
j
bij
ees oo
val
j
on
daly ie ,d sale +1 mamt 204 .2 .A L .OVG qed CLS sko)t .092 Ss
:
aber
;
;
+50, ;
ib
;
Pa
:
ey
(
,
¢
:
7)
any
olaem
rica
7
eal
alec
ee tie
A
ioe
ee as
it
4
/sS
254.
intention four
of remaining
elements
must
separated
be
present
(a)
The
de
(b)
The
animus
on
remain (c)
The
of
absence
The
of
absence
It must
step
of
not
leaving
cohabitation simple other
who
from
spouse
the be
home
expected
remaining
it who
is
is
or
in
the
any
from
that
so,
i.e.
eh
be proved:
spouses;
the
spouses
that
intention
in desertion
to
on
the
part
of
the
it
the
but
is
to
with
matrimonial
Such
the
or
cause
on
party
for
the
such
who
otherwise
deserting
where
in
live
reasonable
part
spouse.
behaves
in desertion.
the
cohabitation
home
is necessarily this
can
follows
permanently;
deserting
thought
-
consent
of
the matrimonial
desertion
reasonably
from
be
the
of
therefore
spouse;
withdrawing of
the
separated
deserting (d)
separation
deserendi
part
It
: desertion
before
facto
the
permanently.
one
him
or
home
and
a case
spouse.
is
In
the
physical
from
cases
virtually
that
her,
the
withdrawing
spouse
a way
takes
drives
latter
can
then
it may
be
the
spouse
who
not
known
as
of
no
the longer
the departs
constructive
desertion.
(a) To
is not
Separation constitute
sufficient
De
facto
desertion,
for
the
the
purpose
spouses
that
91 Pardy
7.
Patdy
[1989]
2 (Add BOR.
7795
one
must
of
be
the
separated
spouses
in
has
fact.
abandoned
It
09motsneesb at eesauoce sit aodeal pee
bo qi
eh anes
wa
bose ieqee) niawea’
iyianeneerssg
(98920. 330q 9742 no 2n0en00 Yo!sanaada-edT a)”
tenga
Soke
‘a
we
cc.
Leeuon® gmtssensb rot sues eldanoese: yns to somsads snT (b) Ivsq |d7 nO forasiidsdo> mori gokws zbsid bw
‘y Tesievdq
oft
asdas
dw
.eeuoge gattisasbh efito et
viweq of3
35 Jers
od jo teum 31
Sdiguods
mot? gntwexbisiw selwreds0 10 omod fstnomtziam 9A3 gutvas! io qe2e to aepsos ot sits asvish uwsanol
on men
.seuege gnks1oacb
vilavitiv savoqe 199981
sfd
Jad?
at odlw nok3eItdsdos
si3 ylitsaessom
sso destct tud
yew 8 dove
.oa af ald? nots1saeb siqnta
xo emod 33 ol seveded
moxt xort0
| odd od yam 11 asda xed 160 wid dtiw evil 03 batagqxe ad qdenoaset
aateqeb odw seuoqe di
:
jon bns smod Latnontszism oft at anintemst savoge 7
evisoyzsano> 36 nwood at 9889 & dove ;
.nokizreasb ak at ody at eee ‘ ;
or a akbesetaqae ad teum sounds ori} aolaisesb adudizeaca ST dae} bonoteed
‘920q710q sil2 x02 amo bait ide 10
‘saav0qe a3 Yo sa0
mie ae
"y
-“
vie -
-* oe, ue. y
ST
a
mr a eer:
es A
-
(104 rtit
r
ZOD some
of
the
: duties
(e.g.
. F rejection must
obligations
be
of
the
live
same
But
In
of
such
course,
is
normally
home,
so
that
a case,
a situation do
not
perform
other
isolated
must
be
words,
a
there
cohabitation.
the matrimonial
roof.
to
: sey of marriage, in
of
affairs,
refused
: 92 intercourse); there
sexual
cessation
of
or
may
fulfill
there
arise
they
is
where
brought
are
a clearly
the
the matrimonial
spouse
no
about
by one
longer
living
sufficient
though
obligation.
continuing
In
the
words
Merrivale:
if
is
from
just
separate
whether
"Desertion
place, there
desertion two
: ‘ obligations
the
together
of Lord
Hence,
all
leaving
separation. to
to have
state
spouse's under
refused
a complete
This
of matrimony
as
are
Animus
A de
facto
the
guilty
from
the
been
not
two
the
a total
The
withdrawal
a state
effectively
houses.
there
(b)
has
but
cessation
as
if
correct
households
the
test or
from
of
cohabitation,
husband to
be
and
applied
separation
other.
has
the
Clearly
in
itself
intention there
will
will of
not
constitute
remaining
be no
v.
Weatherley
[1947]
1 All
93 Perry
[L952)
All
ER.
1076.
94 Pulbora
vi.
eeulbord
sb9 Ze | epee
o we 2.5
95 Hopes
v.
in
were such
can
living a case
be
in is
eee
question
Hopes
[1948]
2 All
E.R.
920.
E.R.
desertion
permanently
92
Perryovn
wife
there
Deserendi
spouse
Weatherley
a
of things”.
563.
unless
separated
of desertion
if
one
orn ane ee © gata 20api spate
* tarts ae
s
mi A apse obit ono ¥¢ tuoda tdguond yilserpn ak .seau0dbeeen gaivil tegaol on os yada sadd oe enol Letnomt asm 83 gaivesl e'sevoge — jnsiolYiwe ylasslo a et s1isd3 .oRso 8 dove al ..3ooz amma of3 tobou gatunttaos dguods sevoge aft szedw salxze yam nolssudin « qd
eohiexnqen”
.toktepbldo Jabapmitism ats ILtilut gom ob xeds9g02 evil o3
abiow odt aI
..
:pfevierreM bred 20
sc? jon at cotizessd” a mort Lewarbddiw
“eantéy to ointe # mor? Jud ,soslq
6d max a19d2 wi gntvil
,soltnsidsro>
to soldseass
[evo
s mead ead exrsiid 24 .oonsH
esb orsw sitw bos bosdewmi oft Tt as yisviyoe??s es saut soksrs
et stan & dove nt babfqgqs sd od j282
Jos1705 ont
ows -esavor stetaqee
22 ons to eblodseuod ows ote o7eHt teddeiw »
or.
kbagreged eumtoh (d)
wi} 4
|
. pios2 ab.A | gealnw dotixseeb styiitacos Jom [itw Meast pt noksaaiqee yaliug “ee hewexsqgoe ylinsesmtsq gatotemay to agtane iat and ead sevoge ano Yt motdisesb
to notsesup
on sd ite ovat qixeld
.tsiio ‘od 1 703%
250% spouse
is
96
health. spouse
is
place,
the
a de
the
later
absent
Normally
leaves
there
is
temporarily
parties
resolves
; animus
the
other,
facto
on
so
or
separation. to
to return,
for
, will
deserendi
that
intended
not
holiday
be
the
desertion
But
if when
return
to
desertion
reasons present
will
the
each
when
continue
original
other,
begins
of business
as
and
or
one immediately,
separation one
soon
as
the
other
of
the
took
them
animus
formed.
(c)
Constructive
Where
compelled and
be
conduct
of
to withdraw
the
must
the
Desertion
case
is
proved
called in
establish
simple
two
lies
cases
HAE
left
permanently
spouse
is
cohabitation
such
the
that
former
spouse
one
of
constructive
decer atone
a charge
of
constructive
desertion
desertion
in In
respondent
from
one
the
and
the
only
circumstances
simple
without
separated.
which
desertion
the
cause
with
In
and
practical
the
constructive
as
are
the
must
intention
desertion
The
difference
contribute
petitioner
&
is
the
is
deserter
same
elements
required
between
factum
prove
of
spouse
to
the
of
that
the
remaining
he must
prove
that
the
96 tvlley
v.
Lilley
[1959]
GALL
ER.
283%.
97
Supra
note
94 at
24;
Shaw
v.
Shaw
[1939]
2 All
E.R.
381.
98
Kemp v. Kemp [1961] other has committed the other's conduct, the innocent spouse and subsequently in
1 W.L.R. 1030; If one spouse discovers that the adultery or has reasonable grounds, induced by for believing that adultery has been committed, may be justified in leaving the matrimonial home alleging constructive desertion.
99 Buchler=v.
Buchter
71947]
1 All
E.R.
319.
>
i ba teats to sno bre , t2a30 fone ot crue. 03
aa eae
eumiae 93 es nooa es antged at
,
a
»
a ak bsvorq od bane norsiseab alquts: dexidasse
foridw esonetemotto efi nat —
Jaum i940itissq of
std Jodi svotd
gnintemas
aolizsesb signie nl
®
a
potaraaab
ee:
y v7] =
odd Jef? atsvooeth sevoqe ano IT ,0€0L .A.T.W EL [fel] CEES d beaubat ,abavorg oldenosnss asi 10 Y¥
ere
Sew
|
ran
o odd _baizimmoo mead asd yxsaiubs 3ar2 gaivatied oe -
EE 2) Sep
rep st) hs+4ae
Oe
easier
ct Aa
Saree ie
s > eed pelo
ihe pee
Rs:-Pre ——))6ClCU
i
Vote cc
‘# aia ey a
ites
ae
>
J
Ven) of4g ew 99" an
a
;
ee ia7
264. CHAPTER
VII
> TO A PETITION [A]
be
DIVORCE
GENERAL
Although can
OF
be
the
proved
granted,
to
Court
it
the
conduct
certain
circumstances,
offence
has
where
there
has
an
unreasonable
in
certain
may
be
for
judicial Under
grant
condoned been
as
or
jurisdiction not
of
always
the
to
connived
relief.
between
the
the
a discretion these
bars
that
Where
spouse
also
or
a divorce
the
or
refuse
appropriate
in
matrimonial
relief
there the
will
has
Court
been has,
a decree. to
or
It
actions
separation. the
a relief
Divorce and (1)
Act
(Canada),
1968
the
Court
in Canada
will; dismiss
the
or
the
fhe
petition
petitioner
is
indirectly
entered
into
to
for
collusion,
a party
an
for
agreement
the
administration
either
of
purpose
directly
or of
where
conspiracy subverting
justice:
ss.
2(c),
91) Cb): (2)
I£ any
Section
3 ground
is relied
i See
may,
seeking
parties,
grant
of divorce
relief
proceedings,
to
are
grounds
seeking
by the
in instituting
that
and
follow
spouse
a bar
collusion
delay
out
does
act
circumstances,
pointed
have
exist,
since
been
may
Judicial
Separation
under
Chapter
Eight.
upon,
will
not
ois
Ln wid
is ha eae oe
ole
(Ree
JAKM
?
SX '
ae
{iw eorovib # 28/2 i
ince ’
ee
at ,Yatt tesiles gnkisee sevoge of? to joubnos oft goad ciei
Intoomtzam od% ovofW
,I9hfe1 of xed 8 eb tos ,seonRsemuoTt> ales
zo ighiex gabises seveqe fa yd bevinnoo to bemobtoo seed ead sonstio —
need asi exeid xo ,eatiwq 943, n99wIed notewlion need asd sisd2 stedw asd txvo} ofa ,egnthessose of3 gotiutiteal ot ysleb sidsnossoimy as 3]
.ss109b p Sau25% yO Shatg ot noltetsalb s ,se9ansJamuorlo nisti99 at anokiss oF sIatyqorqqs owls v1
atad gaed3 ter Juo batatog sd Yom ‘ ,cottszeqee Intotbut sot
joo [ltw ebsned at s4y03 od? 83°)
, (ebaneD) JoA sotovid of3 isha
riliw bos teliss 6 Ins33
e1edy ,notauilos yissextb
xodjie
rot aoksiiog ont askmetb yiuaq
(f)
& at yontttiteq 913
yostkgenos yo Insmstgs as of viJoethbat 10
|
gatdeevdve 20 seoqwy orld 102gimh beresas v(o)S .ae
|
uf
|
ssotteut to mobtgrdetabmbs saz
(De
1
qnogu bebfex sfbavotg £notsoo@ yin2 (S)
Ts
ZOD.
dismiss has
(3)
the petition
condoned
that
public
interest
by the
Court
OC
ie).
If
any
has
the
ground
would
be
granting
Section
dismiss
where
3 ground
at
public
interest
by the
Court
unless
the
better
served
the decree:
petition
connived
the petitioner
is
relied
where
that
the
ground
would
the
upon,
petitioner
unless
be better
granting
2(d),
the
served
decree:
s.
OCC se
(4)
If marriage the
circumstances
relied is
breakdown
upon,
s.
(5)
a reasonable
the
4(1)
decree
expectation
will
If marriage
occur
breakdown
circumstances
upon,
refuse
would
prejudice
arrangements marriage: If
Section
of any
or
of
as
where
there
that
be resumed:
9(1) (d).
the
(6)
in
refuse
cohabitation
by reason
the
grounds
the
marriage
Section
decree
the
of
4(1)
where
the making
for s.
is
in
by reason
any is
of
relied
a divorce
of maintenance
children
of
their
9(1)(e). breakdown
relied
upon,
-
separation
refuse
the
decree
mmr
ce
a i aks Pee ee 68SN eater
a
as
mie
oman”
4
pitts -
een ss3ted 9d bluow tesxaInt ie ‘e9moeb af4 gatinerg
'\
‘
?
=
" rl i"
¢
sj
25
oa
n=
5 or
1481 68
694 a
to vas to ranees vd swobsaoid eget isam at (s) (Dé polize2 nt gsonstamuorro
i}
etalon
t2y09 si oT (ue
ak
—_
ie ind
ort easiny bnvorg Jans 45 lvinictla .@
we
&2
Leia
@
:
on i‘
Oe
:
ae
siedi stadw 99798b 9d3 saute: ,noqu bstiax
rbamvest sd to mwo90 [ftw foksatidados
; .
~~
jad notsatosqxe sfdsnoase: a et Biv
at
ae
Cb) CLO .2
:
to ere to noesds ya mwobwinetd sgebtmem IT (2)
baifes eb (£0. noftos® Ae eeacedemionio sda \ gogovth s oxedw se4086 5d3 Sautsx ,aoqu ated?40 goxbitrio add ¥eneenrige
a —.
”
:
266. where
(7)
a divorce
bar
to
spouse:
If
branch
the marriage
either
matrimonial are
or
and
themselves
which
is
to
where
a divorce
“spouse:
-etther
from
applies or
limited
In
the
petition
other
protect
the
where
upon,
would
is
circumstances
is
bars
of
in
and
absolute by a
connivance
to matrimonial
collusion,
These
terms
of marriage
an
supported
Condonation
is dismissed.
institution
prejudice
application
the
refuse
collusion
proceeding
their
breakdown
9CL)().
that
the
9(1)(f).
arrangements
breakdown. in
cases
Ss.
above,
whether
marriage
bars
the
the
s.
is relied
For
apply,
from
ground
of maintenance
proceedings.
condonation
of
the making
offense
discretionary
offense
decree
to be noted
relief,
harsh
to either
the
is
be unduly
or unjust
-— separation
It
would
of
bars
their
and
connivance
the
distinguish
object,
public
interest.
In
India
the
provisions
established
principal
of marriage
is
will
apply
not
to
grant
the
to
(1)
the
of matrimonial
be made
a relief
facts.
of
to
ofsthe, The
only the
cased
petition
upon
Hindu
law
Marriage
that
strict
petitioner
je... must
Hindu
Marriage
Act
1955,
decree
proof. if
any
adopt
The of
the
be dismissed
Section
23.
if
the
a well
of dissolution
Court
i
2 The
the
Net
in
absolute
India bars
|
.00S
run)
ie
iy
| i
:
|
aay
» flaredPomme
ter 2}
(HY (He .e ‘;aeuege gutite vd,seeynhae
nwobiinetd oghttem a3 Yodone7d ved3to YU ics) sevisy .soqu belles at bnve1g notdsxeqsebluow @ot0vktb & etorw 99798b sift
sotbufetq
2insceynbtTs esonscstntsmto gntiem odd
Orage
(a
\iaom
267
Court has
is
satisfied
not,
to
or
or
acts
is
on
in any
connived
manner
of
(2)
The
condoned
collusion
Sie
2G) e
The
not
petition
The
where or
has
the
petition
not
in any
cruelty
where
that
ground:
Se
must
be
act
the
the
dismissed
between
the
must
dismissed
be
Satisfied
been
any
unnecessary
the
25 Cb) < if
the
in
instituting
parties:
that
the
or
if
the
there
has
improper
proceedings:
SA jae petition
though
is
be
to
dismissed
that
the
establish is
in any
his
or
her
of
disability
for
si
petition
the
own
purpose
if
the
petitioner,
the
relief,
advantage
reldefti
must
satisfied
able
granting
The
accessory
condoned
not
Court
(5)
been
as
delay
Bee
or
petitioner
ano& Sabistiedmehnatechereuds
no
Court
(4)
on
petition
Couctris
(3)
at
ground,
is
the
manner,
adultery
that
petition
that
ground
way,
taking
wrong
of
for
or
such
.23¢ale
must
be dismissed
if
there
e
me ak 30m,esi20 aera edd sxsw yafsu70. ci, Seapine aaa (GES
+a
sbavoxg tadi np ak mokst3eq
sis 12 bodaimers od seum notstzeq ed (S)
4) +
_ gk oxed3 duds botietise som atsmuod
=
ieeiiig of3 nsewied coleullooon |
be oid
» AMES-2
sie
gig) QP bewetmeth od teum sotstiog ofT (EY asd Stody Sed bottetise tow ei fxd ‘tsqovqmlYo yrseesosnau yas need Jon
tegnibedoorq oda gatioitsent nt yeisb
ot o
AE Me . |
wean, 2 ay
©
a(S
s9\
plantas
;™
s
.
fae
.
ee
ord 2i beawlmatb od seum notstieq adT (BI) 0 ed? ted3 bobiaktsa eF JtueQ «tenolstzeq
etes of olds dguods) yg of? dakld 102 bano
Andes ep
oh Das
wera
at AeLer pistg > he ee aus
mwowzo 10etd tosgeamsvbe 10 gaox
-
Ze.
is
any
legal
reliefce, [B]
Absolute
To
amount
Bar
to
not
granting
the
skZ3aCspe
for
possession
of
of
an
offence
which
he
is
petitioner
if
in
is
the
or
there
offending to
the
dark.
also
wronged
not,
hana
He
Rear
it was
of
spouse
will
fact; is
is said
take
mere
you
back
that
mere
belief as
and
his
words
of
and
is
told.
to
be complete
to have waived
held
is
in doubt
nevertheless
I will
element
what
The
you
right
the
can
not
be
only
in not
about
and
the
petitioner's
other's
is
insufficient.
guilt,
if he
says
in effect,
shall
be restored
to complain. did
In Fearn not
See
vi.
also
Keats, the
(1885)
following
164
BOR.
Indian
Cases
where
the
English
Rajani v. Prabhaker (1957) 59 Bom. L.R. 1169. Chandrabhagabai v. Rajaram (1955) 57 Bom. L.R. 946. Premchand v. Bai Galal (1927) 29 Bom. L.R. 1336.
A Gi948)s
TRA.
BR.
459.
law
v.
constitute
754.
followed :-
"whether
to my
3
Keats,
be
condone
something
suspicion
forgiveness
with
position.
must
important The
or
must
facts
petitioner
knowledge
coupled
matrimonial
petitioner
facts.
the
The mental
understand
forgiveness
to her
the
of
Thus, has
be
spouse
operate
he
of Revival
must
disclosure
of which
a question
reinstatement guilty
Doctrine
misrepresented.
must
knowledge
the
a complete
or
or
the
condonation
distorted act
and
condonation
reinstatement
Inevitably,
But
for
CONDONATION
(i)
the
ground
was
eS wate a
7
fi ]
diiw bsfquos easnovignod sd Jeum ezsil4 solisnobaoo o2 tovoms oT
:
-Ookiteoq [sloomitiam ted of savoqe gatbasito od3ti. Insmedssaniey oii ' 7 at od teum xrenotsbieq eds stsataqo 03 Carn
od tom teum ajost sdT snobnoo juods
ylmo nan
-e3oni to ouselsesl a
tsnolsise¢q ont -audT
tot idasiveat
44
s to nokeaseeoq
:
sbodaneerqerela x0 botxoteib
goisdstemoe don bas egbs lwont ead ah dotdw to somstio
to 398 ns
od) bos tnettogmk ak Snomols [nino odT .A2eb oft nt at of dokdw a'tenotsizeq
.imehoitiveat
,jsatie
ya 62
.bios
at sadw brstersbou oels taum teanoltsi3eq
ek sotsatqevts to Istled siam ;tos¥ to soljesup s at sgbelwond .jLtus
todasiw”
sdiY
a'xsdte
ak avee
bstoteet
Vv nigst nt
sa
of ap Sduob al et sevoqe
sd 14 saalqnoo
sd ffede
ad eselstixeven
begnorw odd 2k sua Iltw 3nometsientst
voy bas daoed voy stad Iitw I .ton to yiltug
wtkaiqemo of gright etd beview sya o2 bhas ek ot
eiuttiecos ton bib eeeasyigrot
Yo ebyow evam Jedd blond aaw It i
Bae
ol -miod ve
+ AD
.mod @
*emet ;
-
= §
== *
ee bat (288K)
asw wal dfetigod ede sxadw eoesd shat
a
'
€ hed
cet
269.
condonation the
and
respondent The
as
most
One
exception
in
condonation
petitioner
but
head;
whether
wipe
;
forever
the
and
an
Such
it is
bar
of
knowledge
of
his
good
or
the
is
passes
the
since
out
more
same
over
kind
of
language
of
condonation the
Act
or
cause
the
offender's
or
not,
F
India.
blotted
different,
last
been
so
that
purposes. It
is
an
it.
5 Henderson
v.
Henderson
(1944)
1 All
E.R.
44.
6 The
Family
and
the
Law
- Margaret
Puxon
- p.
108.
7
Gundy, vi.
Cundy,
(1956)
1 All
E.R.
and
will
not
has
to revive,
suggests
not
it will
practical
in
is
of complaint.
offense
difficult all
the
is
offence
original
for
after
offence
original
the
altogether
position
the
the
co-habitation.
Condonation
condoned
the
pleading.
reinstatement
itself
a matrimonial
after
progressively
blotted
also
to
and
reinstate
his
resume
Oamry. Like all probation
probation.
time
to
to
to
of Damocles
of
revive
en)
is
bar
Ore oncee
The
whether
and
no
intercourse
a sword
amount
nothing
forgiveness
wife's
like
misconduct, to
done
still
conduct.
suspended
enough
was
of
sexual
future
had
reinstatement
of
condonation
as
there
act
it becomes
end
absolute
is
a sort
forgiven, in
the
future
Ltis
wife,
requirements
on
the
husband
to
serious
out
his
the
form
remains
any
as
common
has
conditional out,
that,
245.
8
The’ Hind&! Marriage Act((1955). Section 233 "nas then, and in such a case, but not otherwise, the Court shall decree such relief accordingly...."3 see also, The Special Marriage Act (1954) Section 34, where identical words are used.
ofa yo3te ised! sutamozssat Ieuxse - eae a dak saahenel ak 3:9 dl
et nolienobaod
oe
bstao0id gon et bateto banobaos odT a'xisbrello
sz
[ltw
.Jom
saben Sohis om
2SVv0 aolsemett to browa
baa ,Jmex9232rb 20 brio ome 20 sonmstto
¢
a atiw okt to
b@aey
Ay
esd rsnoljtisq— ao iecraueee
s edt ‘babaoge ale
uae eae
ada to xsdieniw .soubnooeta s1us8i pee
tataibieen 8 03
Jnvoms
03 iene
ae
erssandy
oe . dntsiqmnos $0 seus.
Isnkgtro sia sviver
tas{ von LLtw 3f notisdowg [is sail
bas not sanobae3 oid ea iol
® nobtsdorq ro tyoe 6 at
JT ~
ased esd sensilo Lenkgkyo od3 19din eeeesq emt of? as bas rsv9x02
ted3 oa ,avives 03 Ifuotiitb stom ylevieeszgesq esmossd 31 ,mevigro? \ essoqzue fsotsostq mp ek 91
Iis toh asdiegosis
ino besjofd et 31 bas ed} at
-akbrl nt msotsenobnos to tobttacg od cals ef dove+») 8 st edesagqua 29A gia 20. sgsugael sd sonke asd otuloads
ad 8.4 TEA t a
at bos ,ostd ... 4." tes ndtaae2 6 telig: dova sex29b fede y1u02 oft 98 (b2eL) seats
eee ‘aie
:
270%
(ii)
Discretionary
Condonation has
been
made
Bar
in Canada
as
under
the
a discretionary
™O(1)-"On"a be
(c)
bar.
petition the
Where
Divorce
duty
for
of
(Canada)
Section
9(1)(c)
divorce
it shall
the
a decree
Act
1968,
states:-
Court
is sought
under
Section
3,
to satisfy itself that there has been no condonation or connivance on the part of the petitioner, and to dismiss the petition if the petitioner has condoned or connived at the act or conduct complained of unless in the opinion of the Court, the public interest would be better served by granting the decree. Section
2(d)
condonation.
It
of
the
(d)
facts
is
would
to be
from
which
common
at
The
major
reconciliation.
spouses
but
(Canada)
1968,
partly
condonation does not include the continuation or resumption of cohabitation during any single period of not more than ninety days, where such cohabitation is continued or resumed
with
primary
purpose."
noted
being
law
fact
that
the
above
condonation.
condonation
would
be
from
which
2(d)”
7
It
under
simply
the
as
, provides
be
Blackburn
(1970)
state
what
Act
what
facts
(Canada)
are
1968;
condonation.
may
be
inferred
a caveat
11 D.L.R.
not
states
inferred
from
that
any
9 v.
its
does
Divorce
condonation may
as
provision
considered
Reconciliation
section
reconciliation
i
Blackburn
defines
this: Act
constitute
excluded
Act
reads:-
Pee
It
Divorce
127
(Ont.).
is
cohabitation
: period
up
to
of
eRe.
,£ mok3os2 tebav Jdgvoe et setdeb 6 pes (a) ¢ need asf s19it tod’ tleadt forties | OT ei no aonevinnos 7o nofsscobaos
eee
gatmath of bas ,sen0lstieq eft to ee aa tenokttieq of it cotstieq 30 298 91%3s bovinnos 10 bemobmoa efi nl agoinu 20 bentslqmoo Joubnos atidug ef} .21u09 adi to notmigo
oy ae
wey
vd bevtes ds330d od bluow Jestsini -eeito9b ad} gntinesg
naniteb vitteq
ian
t=
3oA soxovld edd to (b)S aolksoed.
.89@L Usbensd)
21.
-:ebss1
toA aida oT
.S"
7
.
.
.nolisaobno>
.
.
siz sbulont gom 2e0b sobtsmobnoo = (b) ro nolisuntsnos
%o noktqaes1
wy)
hotroq olgmie yns aabrvb nottsitderdoo siofw ,.3ypb yasntoa osit stom jon io 10 beuskinop at gottetidsdos dove att as tokseiltonoass Aziw bemas*r
" seoquvq yiemisq
saiiw saade aie
eioet
evode off tad
ion ex0b totekvorq
jerw
zojsta
viqute 4I
.motissobnos
RGA
heaton sd o3 al 3t So otusitenoa
bloow ado82 x
, 8802
(sheasd)
bebuloxs
toA sorovid eds tebqau aolisnobaos gntsd Bi
.nokisaobaoo 28 bexabtenos sd bluow wal commo> 35 dot |
.
et berzatnt sd yam noksenoband doiiv m078 $25} ic ‘on to Aes sha ween most haeenhak adyommalsenitonoost
ae
note a
AY
if
POSED
satsdaheth.s mer
omg
2 Wy
Sinlice
de a)
Aidt BEC
|
my
a
|
ialo “us
on€
PophAe
ninety
days
should
of barring acts
of
the
that
be
petition
intercourse
, B cohabitation fact
not
nor
through
whilst
the
continue
to
reconciliation
the
bar
parties
; condonation
can
spouses
considered
be
live
of
of
cohabitation,
but
no
more
an
attempt,
cohabitation
: inference
The :
The
the
Abolishment
Divorce
Act
of
or
the
Section
the
two
provision
same
roof
may
does
conduct
that
facts.
and
his
condoned
his
association
wife
with
not
of
has
The
raise
reconciliation
in
turn,
raise
is
an
condoned
so as under
to
perhaps,
Consider
the the
9(1)(c).
best
a case
offence
the
The
be defined where
but
discretionary
the
joint
a husband
husband
adulteress
and
the
acts
veplettesn(lo70)e9eD.L.R.
246
(Ont..);
thereafter of
Strachan
(1970).
72 W.W..R
12.
Divorce
Act
(Canada)
1968
s.
9(2).
383
intimacy
@.¢.S.C.).
of
operation
of
to
committed
LAL
v.
bar
by reference
10
The
10
Revival
been
revived divorce
circumscribe
by Section
may,
hypothetical
Strachan
to
3.
established
provisions
irmaites.
amount
acts.
at
isolated
He?
provides:
is not capable of being constitute a ground for
condonation
cannot such
cannot
Doctrine ;
(Canada)
"Any act
This
The
from
attempt
purpose
F inik condonation.
of
(iii)
such
if
the
inference than
apart
inferred
an
the
condonation.
live
under
for
adultery
resumed falling
Tye
h
boreloat edt a
re
uo
3
!
Oo
ia .
03 Inwoms Jeunes sznge ovEE eokyiq 33 sett erwonsesnt 85adi OF ation dove mox? betzsint sd nokisaebnos as2 10n aotiesidedes
sft
9ekset ysm toor smee sit rsb8u avi ot “suntgaoa§eeeuoqe joi dos
et noligiiiononss 3p tqusste eda 2b Sud < HotaeTERS to sousistak ne oe epiet ,o%ud of toneeo mokistidsdos dove , 3909398 as nsd3 stom on LL né23anoba0> to sonsrsint Isvivent
2
dt to
lodA
Se. esbivoxq (sbsas3)
bsnobaeg
nesd asd Jadi
od as oe bavivsa zebnu sotovtb
sfiT
(tit)
29A so10vid siT
toybaoo xo tos ynA"
ynied to sideqso jon af tol brvotg s stutisanos
".€ nobsose®
—
to ted yisnottsxsekbh sa sditoeamysrkh joa ese6b nokatvorq elsiT to solsaxsqo
tatot adT
a3 sonsxster
visiiubs
bejiiemoo
.(5)(1)@ moksos2
as berlell[dsies
yd bentieb sd teed ,eqedteq
solisnobnoo
.Yam anotetvo1g
baadeud # sroiw eso SB fehketod
bomuas?
isylsessda basdand edit dud aosatto di
gatile}
yoambiat
ows ad3
,93963 Isokjerdsogya
bemobmos sitw etd bas —
to ejos sd3 bos eesyediuba sd3 dtiw nobisijoaas ald r
=
ie
‘4
‘
a
—
aie
i
.€,900) 38S .8.0.0 @ (OVEL) gostiT .v esatiT
AOS
Oe
“ont
i
(OR ana
Ge Gansta
i
@aberew?
et .
o
oie
Gaps
errr
ey
© awe aap ee oe.
OP
perce
AS @ .@ 80@L (ebans) *
«ete 88
ana
oe
| mis
Zi oes
short
of
Divorce
adultery Act
asserting
the wife
revival
misconduct. condoned right
of
If
the
to
The
discretion only
better
served (iv)
if
of
Court
the
ve
adultery
bar
>
prior
of
the
condoned
adultery
a decree
the
wife
because
would,
however,
would the
would
no
longer
be
the
of
and
to
would
public
found
the
as
in
the
above
entitled
as
has
grant
of
been
exercise
interest
of
by operation
Revival
required
9(1)(c)
that
be
new
by
issue
erased
position
the
subsequent
and
would
be
Doctrine
now
Section
considered
assertion
the wife's
to
husband's
of divorce
condonation
Today
with
of
the wife's
divorce
its
the would
be
14
it.
whether
Court
LD
existing
Interest
a decree
Blunt
of
The
by granting
the
was
then
Court
determining
petitioner
law
by reason
accepted
changed.
Public
by granting
Blunt
Court
in accordance
decree
In
offence
of Revival,
has
the
complain
revived,
a decree
abolished.
the
absolute
Doctrine
circumstances right
the
Under
could
of
adultery
since
the
occurred.
public
notwithstanding will
2 wherein
in issue.
the
have
the The
interest
condonation
regard
to
the
: ; discretionary House
of
would
Lords
on
be better the
criteria
bar
of
held
of
the
established
the
that
part
served
in
ae ' petitioner's the
following
13 Cundy v. Cundy supra note 7. Stevenson v. Stevenson (1958)
26 W.W.R.
211
n.s.
(Alta.).
14
Julien at.
Payne:
"The Divorce
(Canada)
1968",
(1969)
8 Alta.
L. Rev.
26,
its)
(POU,SUE ZEA
TRG
is
fFolibowed
GinpCanadaain
Balaay.ubate,(1970)
12 Ds.Re 5)
insupsedue: tecstertude Seeslaanypiddaail esas
7
wi? bmyol bas notsyseeR alsttw sd3 bedgsoom sod oda 32. .doubaosetm
to e6 suesh bluow sotovtb Io es72eb a aed? -bevivet vasiiube becobrtos 7:
nokiaxsqo yd beaszs od bigow gotasaobnos to asd stulonds sd3 eante Sdgtt
to ee belsiteas
sd yvegnel om blvow
|
OL tavbvest io enty3s00 9d320
syods sit nt nottigog wetkw ada yaboT
stiw efiT
,begasds asd esonsjemporls
|
aesd esd [avivead to sabiisod of3 seussed sovevtb Yo ssxpsb a 03 digi etl seltousxs o3 feriupet add Jastg sd bluow
od won
,rsvowod
,blvuow Jav0) sdT
.bsdatiods
bluow bag (9)(1)? aot3os2 d3iw sonsbio20s at noksexseth
testetat
tadz
otLdug sit
savoD
bstsblanod
1t ylno sszos8b
sia
ve st gnitnesrg yd bsvise t9339d
dgstoIni aifidut bsyrern eft
yessed
sd blyow Jeexsgal
to t4eq 99
ul bedelidetes
otlduq ary scsibiiaten aninimisjsb al.
a0 noltenobhon
stysaivo
(vir)
sexsb
ghtbnasadziwson
sdt of bisger oved
Ifiyw trod
yd « gnisasigi ond
rsm0kshjaq
.v topls — e) yesoiditeq sit ko tad yrsactsorsalb od utowvodw © Jaulé gniwollot ofa
aacda hied ebro! jo savoll sfT
-(.ea7fA) .2.a LIS
.#.W.W 88 (820L) coans
| ih
vo 3 saath 8 (@2et) , "feo H.5.0 $1 (el
age a mi
J
2
.ousatof enw yrediubs
gegse’)
hdot standnt vad
0 148
onyat apile 26"
ia
7
8S
7-
aa tAS covey
cise
circumstances
statutory
ought
to be
discretion
(a)
should the
of
(b)
considered
be applied
position the
the
the
of
has
special
their
future
question
is not
wife;
the
be
the
if
there
between
of
the
the
able
be judged
is a prospect
of
and
petitioner,
interest
the
and
by maintaining respect
which
"policy of
to
make insist
a union
in
petitioner
live
at
large,
a true
for
and
and, the
community
of marriage
the
the
binding
social
it contrary on
which
the has
utterly
down.
out, Act
that
to remarry
between
pubILe
broken
Marriage
of
the marriage
husband
of
maintenance
Hindu
prospect
whether,
considerations
the
the
marriage;
interest
sanctity
and
with whom
to
the
pointed
children
of misconduct,
regard
interest
balance
already
petitioner:
guilty
[and]...
tO
the
of any
party
eespectably;
to
of
the
.
should
As
the
dissolved,
particular,
(e)
interest
been
reconciliation
(d)
in favour
whether
marriage;
petitioner
(c)
and
interest
with
in determining
condonation
does
not
have
in India the
is an
specific
absolute
provision
bar of
a
'“yagsrtxenr ef? Yo ats mow daiw ¥diseq oft Yo tessoant sad
ae
a
ee
nna ye Yo sessotnt bas hexblids
SrA, (d)
|
Sep
6
eq
«167%
Yo sosqa071g ods o3 bragat Istosqe Adiw tegairiem
|
.
stujvt ‘hens
ogatrram sf9 Ut ,z9d3erlw aottesup sit lo Josqaorq
,beviceetb
6 at erent
jon
‘
(9)
at
bre bandeut neswied aottstifonosst + » « gatiw at
.brp
ganotzrdeq
,tsmotsitseq
ofa
si3
ed3
teorstat
tart
» « bas)
~ogtal 28 diotele $3 suit
.
(b)
,rsivuolszeq
eyldatosqes2
to teairsdak of3
(9)
s gaiaistaitsm ott baybut xd of
guitbatd sfa
zo
Josqeos
maowied sonsisd
Istaos oAz bes ageirism
yistinos
sd
03 eldn od bivorle
evil bas yrrece1 .
30 tesistat
to yYiisouse
JI mek dokdw anolisxebreno>
eit mo tatent o3 yotlog atidug03
rT
qizesiu av doldw notag s to aonsnejoian
d .
Pa:
|
i
" ymraob natord .
ybsomle 2A aad ssufoads ag et atbal at aotiamobno>: ,au0 be3atog egeixxeM ubstll 12 s to moteivorg obtioeqe sit sved ton 8906 3A
an|
274.
reconciliation
bar,
period.
however,
spouse
may
prevent
futile
and
action
is
actively
condone
the
the
would
put
this
reason
Thus
the
is
situation
into
the
law
to
family.
that
try
the
present
dissolution
at
If,
saved, at
condonation
attempts
by attempting
submitted
bar
of
adultery
is not
the
eventual
it
of
of
because
a discretionary
ground
the
account
when
dealing
save
Court
can
to
the
for
encourages
reject
all or
One
marriage
the
gesture
the
divorce
and in
in India
take
absolute
spouses
marriage
condonation
that
to
however,
their
an
reconciliation.
reconciliation of
so
as
to
failing,
seek
they
jeopardy.
the
For
be made
factors
grant
proves
not
should
the
and
in
the
petition.
CONNIVANCE (i)
Absolute
The
essence
Bar
of
connivance
or wilfully
contributed
necessarily
implies
facts
may
start
if
The
act
the marriage lost.
existence
discourages
destruction
reconciliation
[C]
The
be he
such
intention'.
that
that
connives
justification In
the
is
the
*h1*Heh.
taken
continuance
words
of Lord
Cases
connivance
1,
must
is
petitioner
of the
of the
the
connived an
at
it
of
in Gipps
it is necessary
to
have
consented
This
event
adulterous
presence
Wensleydale
must
adultery.
precede
to have
connivance
16
the
commission
the
"To prove
(0664)
that
connivance
he
at
of the
to
is
but
the
from
the
association. ‘corrupt v.
Gipps:
il
:
evar 0%¢x3 02 cosh a aoe ett a adeit ban systys eavoig Stuiesg ods ,tevewod , 11
ed3 Xoaoktouisesb ola. 3novexq 7”
hime
soxovth aa sot bnuotg odd , boven ton atsgatszema3 bas oftz0t _ oe
dese 09 Jon asetoge eygs2dous Jasze7q Ja wel odd eedT
:
itonsoor yond ,gntits? bae mobistitonoos1 gatiquotsa,ydgsusosd noksab 10%
.ybraqoet ai sgeiraam tied? to nolauloesth Isuanevs sd3 tuq biluow
sbam od bivode etbal mk sottsnobnos
isd3 begaimdue ef JE noesst etd
elbB oft ak eto¢on2 ef? [fe ede nas dxv0D ofa Jed o8 Tad vrstolts39 osat soljsutte
.fotsisegq oft taatg tO Jos{ter o3 gatissh aodw tmyooos
aonavtmmon (9) oquloadh =) zo syed tavm
beineenos
gud tnevs
sti? mor?
a3
sada
et sonavinnoo
to aoteetmmos
ehsstule ot
abit sii
tenekstieq
ef2 oF bastudisinoo
yIlviitw to
asia estiqnt
yittseesoon
ont ebases4 jeum sonsvinaes
24 2s bavinmos
lo sonsaes ost
svad oF sodsi
at of dart
dove ed vam atos?
i Jisie ~\moidatooaes avowitiubs as io sonsuattnoo oft 36 sevinsoo od
dquitos' Yo soasestq ais ai somavinaos sf4 to notasottizaut oat
OL eqgtd .v sagtD at alebyotensW bral to ebyow edz al ‘petenieae’s oT" svoxq o o3 yragsesen al 31 aonsyinwe
aaer
y 5
i dike
sy
ant @
tale
OG)
aa) 7
gh aa enbgagixenge gate! Ty aly Geawtster Dala io
te)) oppa vee tae).
PH)sie
show not in such
only
that
a manner
the petitioner
as
that
acted
adultery
might
result; but also it must be proved it was his intention that adultery
that should
result." Thus the
apart
petitioner
forthcoming take
to
all.
If
the
Courts
and
must
very
discovery
other the
is
given
often In
will
their
literal
which
they were
the
meaning
his
The
wife
subsequently
the
plea
of
connivance
Ibid.
at
690.
the
also
be
connivance
adultery
is
likely
where he
he wilfully
knows
otherwise heat
consider v.
is
state
when
the
as and
the to
if
to be
refuses
almost
to
petitioned
684,
the
part
2
the
bound
result
of
governess
from
which
of
the
to
in
divorce the
the
to to
be
wife.
at
provocation
of
the
on
discovery
became shock
nervous, of
letters
the
which,
circumstances
the
fact,
but
consent
and
wife
governess
a licence
for
no
circumstances
the
divorced
is
frustration
child's
intercourse,
on
of
there
igieninesayc
the
amounted
17 18
in
with
and
adulterous
2 ALICE BR.
end
which
given
husband
written
continue
(1948).
offence
Woodbury
adultery
to
can
whereby
extreme
freely
in a hysterical wrote
there
intervenes.
be
case.
husband's
while
the
he
consent
a situation
prevent
consent
particular
of her
to
unless
Consent
express
creates
or
steps
committed
from
the
in
husband the
to
husband
husband
Buckwill
did.
raised
L.J.
said:
in
bsvotg « 1d bhuaris ba deocae 2a soksnasat } a “be
(oe -Oag. a2
a
v
Age Lome!
tr sosavianos ‘48 oals aso oted3 jaseno> ‘ehoxee ws i
yi
.
Sf«a ¢ ee)
ed oF ylexif ef yrstiube ydsrsdw notisuite a ‘g998e%9 staciaisigset odd 4 Oas
o} asevisy ¥ligifiw od sisriw bas ewetixa tedto ada of 10 Giimocdinc® od 04 bnuod teomis
et awoml of dotiw sonsit0 sd¥ Inevexq o3 agqste oi83 ,asnayvrsint
od aeolav bo23 temo. ‘
2
Js jJosanoo
nokissove14
on af sted
saltwradio savig yvisetl sd jaum Jasenod
hie Wok She Says to Jeod eds ot meyig et Jnsenos HW _ tks
sid to asonsdemuorto
yrsvosatb mo stkw afi3 ,auvevren
amessd
sit to doode mt ,dotdw
4 Yry
eteitel
st
rsbtanoo
ME vay dbooW
gasmievog
[iiw naidito bad =
.v yaudboow al
ons
'séa0 so restistend
e'biirio sds d3iw yretivubs e'basdest tof to
odd Yo tivest of3 en siate Lsotisjayd s ot oltdw bos eesmisvog
at esonsiemyosto
oda
ad? 04 sioxw yxevooetb
ada o3 bas basdeud
mor?
bsoxoyib aedw
bas goiosem
[srettl
sheda
od bender 913 09 sonaotl « 02 batjauems nea3izw ezew yeds dokdw -bEb basdewd beetat
oro
basdavd
,.3981 mt dobdw ,satuoozeiak sin
BL, ieee «Lad LL iwisvk
Jud sorevib
rot
avotesivbe etd sunkiaoo
basokikisq
viiasupsedua
.stiw edt to axsq edz mo sonevinano>
Sitw sit
to salq add
| vr 888. HD LEAS (BCL)
J
. fae se bEdt 088 :
,
DU
“In the present
case,
once
Sir
the adulterous
intercourse had started without any fault on the part of the wife, her position, when she discovered it, was very difficult. If she, with a corrupt intention, then behaved in such a way as to promote or encourage
to
quote
the
continuance
the words
used
of
the
adultery,
by L. Merriman
in Churchman's casel9 'I think she should be guilty of connivance’ but
in
my opinion, corrupt intention would mean in this case that the wife showed by her conduct that she willingly consented to the continuance of the adultery. If she showed by her conduct that she greatly desired it to cease, and communicated the desire both to her husband and his mistress, and took the best steps available to her, as she thought to stop it, I do not think she was guilty of connivance.... The principle which underlines the doctrine of
connivance,
that
a
into Court with clean maxim Volenti Non Fit me applicable to such
spouse
must
come
hands, and the Injuria, seems to a case as this.
In my opinion, therefore, the letters written by the wife to the husband and the governess after she discovered that adulterous association did not amount to connivance of subsequent adultery for she had reason to believe that he would be faithful to her again for he had promised to break off the adulterous relationship". Connivance by and
permitting
ManEsialesegl,
19
by acquiesence the
act
to
takes
take
psytlse ditojaunl Nichol1-°
the
place,
stated:
(1945) 2 All E.R. 190; (1945) p. 44.
20
Rogers
v.
Rogers
(1830)
3 Hag.
57.
form
of
coupled
the with
petitioner a corrupt
standing
BTS
auozsiiubs of3 9900 |
sive
yas Suodsiwb
ymsiiubs
Poeek
Such today
is also
is
an
.
connivance
absolute
mass
.
is
of
Lords
: in
if
there
is no
and
later
connived
The
act
It
as
was
v.
Divorce
active
casual
taken
it
capable
Act
or
divorce
the
discretion
(Canada)
the
of
between
or
law.
The
may
acts
House ' ‘spent '
be
of connivance
lapse
of
therefore
break
the
as
till
always
a long
complaint
1968, bar. form.
of
time
after
chain
a matrimonial
of
offence.
accordance
is
define
: English active
promoting
connivance
Law if
or
26
it
which
: connivance consists
encouraging
can
of
the
an
other
offence.
observed
Courts
not
the
It
intention
been
does
In
a matrimonial
the
of
, connivance
connection
connivance
connivance,
a rule
that
may,
and
Bar
a passive
and in
held
place
already
to
thought,
has
with
bar
25
Law
"Once
,
once
reconciliation
in committing has
the Hindu
In England
Godfrey
. : a discretionary
is
under
A true
make
performed
spouse
eo
Discretionary
ie it an
eee
effective
adultery
(ii)
take
Godfrey
and
position
not,
acts.
causation
under
the
that
may,
but
with
the
connivance will
not
criteria
is
now
a discretionary
necessarily, defined
in
exercise
Blunt
v.
23A See
the
Mohan
following
Lal
v.
Riweuionhn.
Mohan
Indian
Bai,
A. leks
cases
A.1.R.
(1952)
where
English
(1958)
‘Rajth.
(Nageso5.
24 Grant:
“Family
Law"
(London
-
1970)
at
81.
20
CLOGS)
AtCe
444,
26 Rumbelow
v.
Rumbelow
(1965)
P.
207
(H.L.).
cases
71:
were
followed:
aA)
|
XS
’
)
]
,
'
e
[{k3 sonsyisnoo bine wad ubellt otf? obnw Hoatacg ort Oals at doae ns ek ysbot —
atar APS ad oc
eyewls ,Saasviaroo son0" bi
.wal to sfuz 6 . Sdguods so410 enw ee Jom at *Soonevimnoo. ‘3n9qa' od ysm asnevianon seit bled eS po¥tboo +¥ xgxibod ak abso 3o
seyol sfT
Yo atos asswisd notiosmtos Tsveso) evigosits om ef sisd3 tr
gonsavianos 19928
omi3
to saqs!
.2398 193s!
aust A
gnol s xo gotist{tsnos97
bas
, tam 9oslq nadet eed yrstiubs bevianos
to niedo ofa Asavd oroteveds
_99naitto Istoomtyism 2 es ankslqmor to sfdsqes Ji odsm bns aolsseuss
yranolseusetd (Et) ef dotdw sonevinnos nso
ms seito
sonsviasoo
Fad
to edetenos off
jon e90b
onktsb
detiaod
ii tr svizos
agrigsivosns
to
sii ak
2f 30
gnijomorg
sonstio
yvisnobtjetoetbh 6 won g2isisxe
_y davfd
gon
visnottet2erb
.isd
.mi0d evteesq 30 nottnsint
Istnomt1jsm
[fiw
tnd
. yam eIrved
oT
395A sorovid
(shsasd)
od3
s et 3i asbau
& ro svijos d3iw
s gaisijimmoo
eda
mB sist
bemroirsq
tend bevisado nesd ybsexis
al sonsyvinnoo
,vibuseeooon
,88@F
Jos
ak savoge
ead
bos sotovib
31 o3 isd
nt benktieb aixedtxs eda dtaw sonabi0s.s mk aokjotselb sd
AES -hswollot
siéw
eseeo dabige’
saodw
eoapa metbal gatwolloi
okRepadalt
LIN aiddpedt (822) Toh CVE
-geu
¢
‘
ah
sik
isd oedoM
oA. eV
18 38 (ON@L - aobnod) "wed yfimet" bee
~(.0.H)
sd3 992
oD.A
«L.A
230870 ., (20e@L)
sdmut YOS .9 (28@!) woLodmua Lv wol
as
-
as
q
280. a,
Blunt. respect grant
of
the
P active
that
probable
decree
be
; is
satisfied
by granting It may
the
the
that
the
public
be
pointed
now
extended
in
of
all
matrimonial
presumably the
to
petitioner's
The
as
has
granting
In
all
sum
up,
spouse
the matrimonial
the
it
will
would
‘ in
more but
a decree
cases,
or
readily there
even
however,
is
though
the
be better
aid
or
encouragement
well
as
spoken
Court
served
Act
constitute
(Canada)
knowingly,
as
that
certain
or
implied
consent
applies
grounds
It
for
is
offence
wilfully
of
or
accessory.
or
an
and
matrimonial
connivance
to
becoming
under
an
of
1968.
has
been
bar
adultery
such
may,
action,
of
which
assents
thus
discretionary
wherever
observed
encourages,
the
context
petitioner
is
offence
the
Divorce
caused
by the
that
offences
therefore,
been
permitted
Thus,
Courts
connivance,
interest
out
beyond
3 of
applicable,
recklessly
of
section
respondent
from
‘ : the discretion
decree.
further
under
the
passive
: 28 established.
is
divorce
of
Courts
connivance respect
oe exercising
connivance,
in cases
precludes
, connivance
: in
that,
petitioner's
a divorce
nothing
must
‘ is
It
aids
is where in
accessory
the
to
or
by so
commission
the
circumstances,
the
be
offence. by silent
arranging
vay L943)
M2 SALdb EARS VEL Ss
Julien
Payne
28 See
also
“The Divorce
May v.
May
(1952)
Act
(Canada)
3 DosR.
29
Woodbury
v.
Woodbury
(1949)
P.
154.
725.
1968"
supra
note
14 at 27.
ak apkdexseib adagatessiexe oh sala efdadorg atat“ -3outh cLtbes1 10m JLtw asvo) sft ,sqnavinnos 8"x9m0bstieq 3, 20 J9eqae7 el syedit:tud ,sotavinnos evieesq to Bseso abeasaph sotovib 6Jas1g
dguodd asvs s9%osh ® gutina1g moti ed1u09 edd eshuloerq jad3, gotd3oa 8S padatideres, ak esoasvinnos svitos
Jawod af .xavewor ,aseso Ife al
sda jefd botietise ed Jeum bevisa s9tted sd bivow teo193al oiidugq
+99199b sd3 gatins1g. xd Yo ted visnoltetselb ody
brs yretlubs
astiegs
Yo txs3n09
stuttszenoo
102 ebauotg
et 23.8800
of2
baoyed bebasixs won at sonsvinaes Istnomttism
dotiw asoustte
Lis to Joaqesz ak r9ebay sotovib
to € nofise2
sd
toA sorovid
(sbsmsD)
ysm 3I
duo bsintoq od redtxvi
tad3
4
Isknomt+ism
to sonstto
xo ylfwiliw
orodw
soteztmmo>
ased
,¥igaiwond
,sidsotiqqs
,otolsieds
need
asd to beeyso
F
SF erosusnon aii
toversdw
dove
esd
taobnogsas:
9d2
ea
#
"
et
bevreedo
jad’
2k sonsvimnos
of? mt ebis ro of etnosen
—=—7
yd bestimteg
edi
ite @p tenotitieq
yidsmuesig
oF
,.qu mye
3f
,asgetvooMs
yleesidost ,eunT
sevoge e'reqotsiiieq i
.gonetho jnolle
sf7 od vroase0cs
vd ad
,esoestamorlo
anigassis
oa td Yo
ap
gnkmoosd
aisiis2
3jmsenoa
euds
gonstio
Letnomtatsm
,ysam Jasmeygsisesns
isbay
beliqmit
10
’
.foh3o8 nesoga
é
to
sft
TO bts sfiT
es
as, [lew a
“—
‘ a
-CLLL US
os #1 ston
s1tque
- XS 8.9 ILA S (BACT).
" ATG
€ (S2eL,
. — Bs emyst ootiol —
ysM .v ysM oals 902 *
del , FT(@d2L) yrudboow .v waydbooll
Zu
conditions
the of
as
petitioner the
Court
submitted in
to
known
should as
that
India
as
assist
it
discretion
been
Court
bar
policy
to maintain
spite
of maintaining
in
Such
deprive
respondent
a bar
in
and
and
petitioner
for many
in England
India
should
be made
a marriage
which
a respect
for
changed it may
has the
of
years
Courts
because
the
the
from
be
an
binding
of
aid is
connivance
and
is made
it may
be
within
the
absolute
bar
contrary
completely
of
but
a bar
part
It
a definition
the
be
on
co-respondent.
to attempt
should
India
the
to divorce
of
action
to
broken
sanctity
to
public
down
in
of marriage.
COLLUSION (i)
As
Hindu
based
whatever
may
or
its
on
be
Collusion
; suit
Law
distinguished
petition
or
the
decisions
the
a discretionary
[D]
course,
connivance
of
commission.
is unnecessary
it has
that
of
against
in numerous
suggested
its
: their conduct
from
connivance
only
ground
of adultery,
of
petition.
the
the means
agents
ground an
30
provided
the
agreement whereby for;
or
is
bargain
not
parties
to
the
pending
divorce
suit
element
in
a collusive
bargain
is
an
every
an
absolute
collusion
between
$5 3 invitation
the
but
which
of
the
bargain
is collusive. attempt
to
v.
Schlesinger
(1959)
1 All
E.R.
is
the
An
i suit
a
a bar
is
to
procured
into
by
essential
pervert
155.
to
parties
entered
30 Schlesinger
bar
the
court
of
a
(estes'”
|
|
7
eae
oaoF 86 aabh3abae9 ett Jatees to +89 9nd mo-aotdo8 fova nokegimm
etien Sivas anaokdlamicnlll nip-mitistihs mapkidetiog 2ds-0vzinebianRen at $I: y2aehaoqest-or bas Jmobmoqest oft) Jentags a8 31v09 943, to sonevinnos to aoksintish s J2qm9338,/02 yiseasseany et 2k ted3 bogaimdus:
obam et bas avecy ynam x02 sovovitb 03 16d 5 ased 2nd.at es stbaliat ed vem 3b tavd bosigad mt adzwed edt Yo esotatoeb auotemun sk nwonad sft atdtiw
tad s sbam od bluode
02 asd stuloeds
to ytitonse
stbal at asd yvisnolts1serb 6
sd yen Jt sevsoed
at avob medord yletelqmoo ,opstirem
betesggue
bsgasdo od bluoda bas 3169 9d3 to nolistoerb
ms mot?
otiduq 02 yrarsm0s
at somsvingoo jada
sibnI
guibnid
esd dotiw sgstrism 6 atsiatem o3 yotfog & gainisinism
Joeqaet
rol
sdi
to siige
worevstos wet ubot
as et doidw somevinnos
« of and sjufoads
mort
bedetugnttetb
[a]
— (5)
eA
sed 5 at nokavtfos ,yrotivbs Yo brucig vino sd4 0 bsasd Aobshieq -nokdtieq sd4 %o bavotg edt od yam tsvetsdw 8 of
asitisq
botwo0rg yd oft
offi meswied
ak dive
to nokisiivat
odt
alsgyed
betsias
Istomeaes nA
InemsaTgs
atsegiusd to
yisvs
of3 ton
M&
ansem
notaullod
ydstodw Of sates tioed3 10 gta
sud
;10% bebivotq
soubaes ait 10
.svbavllos at tive sotovib gutbmeq edz o3 esit1sq
to tiyos sft? trevreq
OF Jqmetin
as ek ntsgrad svievilon s at jnemols
a
.22L
psn
,H.0 ILA £. (@2eL) pashesisoe -v |
wae
282 justice.
If,
parties
intended
suit
any
or
tothe is
absence if any
the
the
or
It must
and
connivance
with
has,
which
who
by the
an
might
come
intention
to
there
to
but
that
to
and
benefit
suit,
be no
the
there
collusion.
therefore
does
collusion
in
cannot
a collusion
one
is,
the
be
acts
the
independently
of
take
the
while
intention
place it
agreement
pervert
distinguishing
that
collusion an
some
the
can
a divorce
a corrupt
in
of
of
in
connivance
given
between is
to
course
the
the
parties
initiate of
consent
divorce
justice
so
that
be dissolved. between
a suppression the
In Laider
with
institution
conducting
to
the
other.
collusion
is about
have
the
of
asperities
objectionable, v.
So ee. bek.
210.
parties
facts of
though
feider
aL GL9Z0))
agreement
and
the
There
an
co-respondent;
agreement
smoothing
Court.
who
the
themselves
and
effect.
circumstances,
provision
amount
therefore,
adultery
of
to
not
out,
of
otherwise
come
pointed
act
Court
that
wants
be
an
the
respondent
to
the
agreement,
out
to
Mere
is no
the
respect
held
petitioner
marriage
with
in that
will
of
to match
inducement
the
the
or
the
never
is
proceédings
conduct
there
bargain
it
amongst
its
if
that
between
respondent
agreement,
proceedings
parties
feature
of
But
of any
bribe
by their
fact
defend
consideration
instituting,
collusion. the
a fair
aspect
party
Hence, not
upon
but
not
merely
litigation,
it
is
liable
es a request
involving
is
an
imposition
facilitating not
to be
by a wife
proof
collusive
or
looked
into
to
husband
the
on
by
the to
|
-,
S88
ty
ee ;
i
aoe
a
i ‘
+ easomgamnts as 20 aokzneponon 3a}amagn«2X-ankahut odsPgh 0
ngs ods foasm 03 ,inemos7zge xhed3 xd bobrosak eotsaagq
3 Fonad amoa te aofatvorq a3 dtiwJou! “192 pIt Io J>9qem ys TO) Jlue at xo ,gntiwsiseat yIxagq 9d} 03 stodd Jive odd gaidoubno> Joogest Jedi
ak sisd3 At 3u8 ..molevif[oo ef -nokevlloo on sd mao stedi ,Inemes1gs on, bne sorovib ® ainsw tmebnoqacz ss3 jad} 3on3 asl .9909H
escb srotszsris
oid at nolaulios oF Jnvoms ton Iitw egatbes201q sd bnsisb jon & 9d tonnso
notewlion
io ylieebroqsbui
elo
03 atsgisd
yas to sonseds
18 03 9moo 19ven
eotsizeq of} 2
jadi
.399its
sisfT
9fo Jud jnsmesrgs
.tadje eda yd tuo bled Jnomeoubnt gnidatugutietbh od? tsdt .stoler9ds
gonsvianos JnganoD
mt sitdw tana .at aoteulfoo
asviz
sotinsini
313 meewisd sstjieq aorevkb tedt
of
oft
sopiq sist
of tosmesxges
to satuen
of2
os
.au0 betmtoq sd teum 31
bas sonsvinnes
s ditw
o9 Juods
Br 3t goteul{foo
eteidink
soiteuft
3qurtoo
at
ei dotdw yrsiiubs
:tasbaoqast-05
os gniviovnt
ton
oF solineial
esfiisq eft
sf
sd3
as
brs
ditw
ef It
to jos os o3 tnsbnoqest
svsd odw aevisemed
-beviozetb ao snoittaoamt
agewied siuiset
,asl ofw irsm0ktttieq
03 smo
Stev19q
so odiid yas
jJegnoms
egntbsssoxq
od tdgia sgsixzrem od3
asswied
jugmestgs sT9M
Qoore ankszetifion? yloxrsm tud sfost to soteeerqque s to Jxwod oft te evtewifes
son ak ,softegtstl
to asttiyeqas
edi satdsoome
bas
etd yd otnt badool od of sfdatl et 11 dguold ,sldenotiastdo selwraito 03 basdaud sd3 ot stiw s yd Jesupes s te ~~,zebtat .v xebisd oI
-Of2
. JWOD
.A.I.T 0€ (OSOL)
:
aT
2
eset
283.
furnish
her with
present
a petition
a suggestion
wife
evidence
was
that
the
gain
her
The
most
flagrant
that
offence
one
so
collusion case.
raise
of
could
as will
unless
commit
them
of collusion
shall
commit
other
where
the
parties
same
another
collusive
cases
the
facts,
not
adultery
enable
her
it
amounted
to
adultery
in order
that
to
the
freedom.
that
The
material
held
of his
husband
may
agree
be
such
may
bar
applies
example,
as
appear
petition.
produce
principle
for
or
a defence
to
false
the the
where
to
to
parties
respondent petition
parties
matrimonial
there
evidence the
the
commit
Similarly,
where
where
arise
is no
prove agree
a real to
undertakes
but
these
suppress
not
facts
to
must
material.
The
danger
arrangements
of
collusion
while
divorce
as
the
maintenance
of
the
wife,
and
the
This
problem
was
discussed
Here
he
perfect with bring
pointed
out
propriety
good or
cause, carry
and
on
disposal
that
once
Gh94S)r
DALE wR
494.
of of
they
spouses
pending
children,
the matrimonial
agreements
that
when are
their
by Denning
proceedings,
32
highest
proceedings
custody
provided but
is
of
they
sort
entered
a bribe
are
about
or
collusive.
to make such
matters
the maintenance home
in Emanuel
this
were
become they
J.,
wish
and v.
caild
into an
its
contents.
Emanuel.
be made
bona
with
fide
inducement
to
and
eos
oe
o3 ‘rei sidaas thwessibs Saar ASaaReeal ea "a be¥alupme 42° anotal bvinuttos Yon bied ohw bel¥iey & Uhbebe eee
of3 Jedd tebxo al yretivbsey
5
ry ‘if
eels 18q og Isinomttism
RE eles
OR ee eee
9
-
(‘as
stosw avkue fokeatied to aseso Jnstasli pueeLot
ms
timo.
03 tasqqs
eee?
asl)
on al stor.
hana
ge)
10 Sais {Tada moi
ned ancl
to sno
sedd S9735
ee
ie
-fotibseq ven tefito sft
leh.
Son.
jada of sonstto
Isst 8 svo1zq of soasbivs eelst panbons astiisq ails eteiw nokeulto> eesiqque 03 Jon
estsisq
o2 setgs
entines etiabiitie 91182 onT
ef3 sxsw
insbnogest ‘23 stow
astAgizebau
,siqmsxs
10%
-3859
ates? laksetel
seumt etost sean dud molitisg efi of Sonsteb& es tad isfj0ns seis .Intistsmsd otsm ot detw asevoge
sit
sonsneinism 2393009
ett
bas
© tema dtiw obea
smod
deedgid
,asablido
steda
Isinomirtam
ort
slidw
soxevib
to ybozeus
bas SbE2 snod ojmt
od dmomesubat
10a
etds
beretna
etnasmegns1is
bas Lnollsetiiiads sd3
2s
io Leeieiis sit he othe ads 6
eaw aaléorg atdT
-v [ousema ot ,.L gainnsd yd beeevoetb
ed biuoo
;
at notevltos to tegnsbh oat
ay sgitbessotq
anibasq
tuods
, awestiem dove
asdw
to edmomesuge
IjsAl3 tuo bedatoq ad a19H
stew yon? dads bebivozq
Yielxqorq
Jostxeq
no zo sdivd & smoosd yor? a5no Jud ,seue> boog ditw
-oviewlloo 91s ysis ,egatbessorq mo yrie> to aatyd a
a
>
6i(wDasl
»
Ss
Tew?
284.
The
effect
proved
that
decree
or
a decree
is
collusion
that
nisi
was
Such of
may
bargain
agreement
the
on
(ii) The collusion
existed,
be made
after
the
petition
must
it.
only
in
and
is
or
after
on
that
the
the
the
Hindu
Law
a discretionary
that
the
Causes
bar
and
is
and
no
the
was
such
decree
and
‘the Matrimonial
it
whether
petition
ground before
once
be dismissed
immaterial
and
after
is
presented,
an
absolute.
present Act
position
foes
cases
have
is
been
1965.278
Law
Parliamentary be
It
nisi
under
“after
is now
before
decree
position
"But
bar
be rescinded
basis
should
absolute
may
Canadian. Joint
on
an
struck
in England
this
as
was
made
a collusion
decided
collusion
collusion
order
collusive and
of
Committee
ceetained
not
of
the
to discourage
or
prevent
asa
so as
negotiations
was
opinion
that
“bar?
between
the
parties
or
their solicitors or agents with a view to the reconciliation of spouses or the making of bona fide and proper arrangements with regard to the custody of and access to children, the maintenance
of the wife
or division
of assets".
S28
Matrimonial
Causes
Act
1965
Section
5(4) (a).
32B
Gosling v. Gosling (1967) 2 All Mulhouse v. Mulhouse, (1966) P.
E.R. 39.
510.
ys}
Report of the Special Joint Committee Commons on Divorce (1962) at P. 32.
of
the
Senate
and
House
of
Vel
|
|
od)
dats
Joetls ett eh io> ak Jt oom tad? abxsdstoloeds a8 esgoteulto on bas beeetmarb sd jaum sotikieq ofa ,betetxe moteslios tsd3 bsvorq .3% ao sham od yam 19b10 ‘ros9199b
ek 21
ed) redjedw (sivotammt
_bstasesxq asw moltijeq of? watts 10 syoted tourte aaw otsgred svieulios mp doue tai? bnverg sd3 ao bebntoes1 od ysm tela es19sbh 8 bas
+ ituloads se128b st0ted bas tefa ss199h 193ts abam asw Inomestgs noktiaeq +s3e7q si% bas wel vbokH ed? tebav soktteog ada eb dove ab ASE ager need eved
9A
eeess
latnomtyieM
esave)
bas isd vranokdstoelb s yino\won aSt ager 197%8
ef aoteulioo
bas at etasd
etdi
no
wel astbsas) jsdji
notnkgo
of2
to esw
o933immo)
eater
jneverg wetv
s es
to Sgatuodetbh
to estixeq « d3lw
bontsisr
oF a6 of Jom
sd bluoda
s Jedd bsbiaosb
(tk)
jntol
y1staemetiisd
afd msowted
ejnegs
2o
9d3 192%e bosignd ot aokeullo>
iT
sotevlios
Jud"
anolbistsogen
sto atotiskioa
rired3
eda to asevoge to ooljsiibonese1 si o% -sgnetzs teqoTq bas sbii snod to gniasm to yboteuo sd3 03 basge1 diiw esas sonsneiniaw edt .maxblido o3 gesa08 bas
."etsees
FT
le
—al
Lal
Ee
to mofatvib x0 sitkw ard io
SE
IeBAN
at
OR I
tt
Be wr
do
“ASE . (2) (A)2 nottos? 2aQL sod eoaus) I[ataombzjeM
gSe
O12
.#.9 L4A S (NO@L) goifeod .v gnilsod
lull RE .G (88CL) .sauodluM .v savor £&
to seboH bas sisce2 oft io s9dthamod tatol Lskoeq2 sitio 1toqoA
-S€ .% 3e (SCL) sorovid mo anommod
260%
The
Committee
stated
its
Sorte
"It is not desirable that the man and wife be kept at arm's length by a rule of law and prevented from doing what is right and honourable under the circumstances or that which may lead
to reconciliation." Section Divoree
Act
2(c) as
defines
collusion
for
the purposes
of
the
follows:
Moyer
tell TEL
(c)
SAEs
Collusion means an agreement or conspiracy to which a petitioner is either directly or indirectly a party for the purpose of
subverting the administration of justice, and includes any agreement, understanding or arrangement to fabricate or suppress evidence or to deceive the Court but does not include an agreement to the extent that it provides for separation between the parties, financial support, division of property interests or the custody, care or upbringing of children of the
marriage”. Section
9(b)
of
MOK)
(b)
the
Canada
Divorce
Act
states:
On a petition for divorce be the duty of the Court to
satisfy
been
no
itself
collusion
that in
it
there
relation
shall
has to
the petition and to dismiss the petition if it finds that there was collusion in presenting or
prosecuting
34 bad.
it".
ee
sks
et: |
SVR
ks,
elie
axle ie es we daminaciesiresesiic |
bed
adieisnints
tartaoe ges
garde
sieative
al= alouwee
bandassecats
roe20el)
ae on erat
ed3 Yo aseoqxeg ada xo
&
Seg
noteullos aeatied (oS aotioe®.
rewollot es. 390A soz0vid staAveids al.
29 jaempetgs ns ansom noleul{[od
2S".
(>)
fl
rwsiotitisq 8 fdotd@ o3 yosztiqasoo visosrtbat to yljoetkb tortie et to seoqiuq
efi
oe ve
t=4 toed
|, Son
;
6
tol yireq
to nolsertelatmbs sd3 gntitrevdue _Jaomestgs yak esbulont bas ,sotteut oi Jesmegneri1s to gotbastersbauv 10 sonsbhvs sastqque 10 sasoltdst jon 2z90b jud tryed ef3 svisoab of Inoixe sft oF Josmaergs os obuloak
—=
bit
iG
ackisisgs2 yo! asbivorq 3 tad2 Istonsall
,getixsq
of? nsswisd
vaiaqo%g Yo wokatvib ,2soqque 10 S3B5 het aig 10 ajad193at
adi to sabE bits to antgntxdqu ."santrisn :g93se35
sda Jo (d)@ noljo02
3oA gorovid sbaas® a
(iste +t sotevkb ro? nottizeq e ad
(£)e"
jxyoD sry to yiub sft sd
aan ae o3 mo
od
a2
dedi Meeit viekine of Bot eullos on oe
off motdigeq
oteda teA9 pol 32 24
10 snare
a
(d)
|
ti(iti‘—~S™S
C
iteq
pie sete =
.¥
ane
eos
ti
286.
Collusion of
all
the
Ait
35
grounds
34
breakdown.
A
It
, is
but
thus
not
Collusion
that and
there wife
by the rendered
it has
for
does
spouses,
of
contest
been to
to
absolute Act
as
Law
these
been
an
of which
bar
it
is
bar is
the
agreement
or
of
them
the
Court
the
security
for
eliciting
its
on
imposed
Marriage
to
of
of
collusion
between to
whole
of dissolution
husband
that
by the
(as in a defended
is
bring
ensure
is deprived, the
by the
a number
undertakes
whereby
a decree
Hindu
Canada.
bargain
arise
interests
or
the
essence
is
in
marriage
judicially
bar
confidence
faults
under in
The
pronounce
in respect
also not defined
decisions
one
to divorce
matrimonial
interpreted
of opposing
unable
sufficient
the
Higeee ene
not
an
English
have
a result
in
an absolute whether
in India
defined
should
as
position the
is
divorce
According
proceedings
of
of
under
steckaniaaed but occasions.
constitutes
the
acts
truth,
case),
afforded
and
of marriage
is with
justice.
34A
See
also:
Dutko v. Dutko (1946) 2 W.W.R. 29. Cambell v. Cambell (1969) 2 D.L.R. 708. Tannistv. {Tannis: (1970)c8eDi LiIR: 2333¢
35
The Hindu See
Marriage
glsoe
Act
1955
Section
23(1)(c).
Hall wv. Hall ALLER. (1933) Sind= 70. beiton-ver Guderin AtieRs— (1929) Cate
=599-
36 Matrimonial
Causes
Act
1950
(Eng.)
Matrimonial
Causes
Act
1965.
a0, Report of the Royal Commission Cid. YO7o. 08. .OG,erara. 230).
on Marriage
38
Churchward
v.
Churchward
(1895)
P.
and
Divorce,
1956
(Eng.),
Ned
re
eg
0
eee
a ssieish innittie he, icaa
edw vite dllo abnyorg oda is to ogsixrem to etfued Intnomts3am redi ASE oa" &e "9 ‘os ies i oral oget1%eM ubat 9d3 rebau id oswtoads a we Po - aeerybg ys
poathes.aine el ts ae .ebaasd ak ef sf 28 sh hott pm a4 >
et
ada yd bontieh joa oels
ysbay ssa
wel detiga®
at sud °€oauseie to dedmun s fo yfisiotbut bstetqresat mead dad to somee2ea9
pt motevilos
bredeul
anokatosb
meowled atsgisd 10 Jnsmo1gs
anitd
ait
tad)
ejos
of?
o3
eetatzabay
siuema
slow
mad?
sf3
gotiiotis
snediatraads
AS need svat bivode sxsd3 Isi3 dotdw
to sao
ef I1vo0d sd
o3 gntbr0s9A
gesd3
ek xsd ait
o2 beeoqmt
vd »bevtaqeb
,dvu17
bebyotie
313
Xe sorovtb
ydatolw setts
qot .y3izuose
& B56 stiw bas
to jivess
ef3
tot agatbssoorg
jon es0b nolsleog to
ince
3d3
to
sateoqqo to 3eetmoo sd yd et bos ,(s280 bobastob s ot 38) siaeteiat ftiw
sgsizrem
to notaulorakb
to $a729b
Se
s sonuonotg
otjaut
03
oidanu
edt ak sonebtinos
bersbast
tnstortive
a -2S .H,W.W
ARE
S (aser) ot3uG «v otaut
:oels 9928
BOC 8.0.0 S (0d0L) Lledms -v £0€
8.1.0
8 (OVEL) etaneT .v
£6
.CoyCL)eS aotsse2 V2CL 3oA ogetz1eM ubatH ofT
002
OF .bate (£ECL) .A.T-A | .fe0 (RSL) -A.T.A
.v Ish -v poitd
:oals 382
af 36M omtr Istn aseus) 2a@L toA aseusd IstaomtageM (.g0%) DEL JA ve ¢ eA d10q to eft A Isyo simpod ,(.gn8) d@@L ,soxovid bas oqnataem ao sote .O€S .wted ,8d .F ,803@ -bmo
‘
de
a § (2081) basatonatd A
anlalnie aay
oe °
a
267s
Thus
to
it
is
determine
even
if
it
Canada,
and
observed
whether is
the
the
Court
matter
objectionable
or
that
not
collusion
practice,
is present
it may
in the
has.a.disenetionstosegrant
is more
or
in English
not
serious;
if
there
collusion
is
the
the
be
case;
an
crucial
because
decree.
remains
collusion,
not
In
absolute
petition
must
if
is
bar
be
dismissed.
In Australia
F with
P intent
the
direct
to
themselves
difference
Zealand, no
and
in
New
cause against
effect;
unless
the
bar
7 a perversion the
same
in Australia
discretionary.
collusion
Zealand
, ao of justice.
kind the
In Australia
the
improper
is raised
is
it has
intent
but
absolute,
been
held
described
there
and
that
in the
collusion
ee res jurisdictions
Both
of arrangement bar
there
is
a
in New
there
statute
is is
presenta Thus
under defined
it
is
the Hindu and
submitted
Marriage
a section
that
Act,
reading
"Collusion
shall
collusion
1955. as
It
follows,
be a bar
in
is
India
has
suggested may
be
not
that
inserted
to divorce,
being
a current agreement of conspiracy to which the petitioner or respondent is a party, to effect some illegal, wrongful or improper purpose such as the bribery of
39 (Aust.) (N.Z.)
Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 Section 40. Matrimonial Proceeding Act 1963, Section
40 Beeld wv, Bell (1964) A.L.R., 29% Grose v. Grose (1965) N.S.W.R.
429.
31(a).
been
defined
it may
be
in
Act:-
the
¥ A
;
NBS
ck
sae ea . HT
Letowrs 2d donyaar3h,eoksoorq dekigalat5
los : sevsoed yeaso odd nt taves7q at notesi
7?
7
;
el 32 2kmeve: .99%Dsb od? tmaxg02 sotseroekb isead 20) edi
al
: sauotree otom at euthsnshincti:d, see
asd etulosds nw eatams: soteuiloo
10 sidsqotjostde bas od Jauit motaizeq of .aotevlioo et s19d2 1 Jom ee
a
. boeelmetb
stleszevA\ abe” 7 cotewtien et oved? It beets wt xsd od? bneiesS wet bas dto&
anoliolbarxrut
5 at xed?
ef .eotieut
to moltersv1sq
o2 toesnk sd3 daiw
6 938089
sameds tooth tud tnsmegneTis to bats omse add Jentages govi
welt ai bas ,stufosds
et ted os
aifsijevA at ;sastte nk gonst9ttrb
swisnokts1serb , basissS
nl a} susdt tarty bled mood esd 2t skiesteuA
sk sivisie
add at bedkroesb
tasink seqozqmt sds sasiny noteviloo on _.
oA
.snee9Tg
y
bsaiteb
mood
jon
sibal
as
mi
mofavilos
od vem 21 ted? betesggue af IT od yam
=! 4oA od? wk batreant
tad7
audT
at 3f
boitjimdue
.22@L , 39K sgeltreM ubotl edd rsbay #5 guibset sotjose
,ewolfot
s bas bsntish
gitted ,e2Tovib ot sad a ad Iisa soteul led” dokdw ot .viteq
yoettqenos te Jmomestgs tasyiso & 8 et InsbNogest 19, semoistiteq a3
.[agel{? smoe
10 iutgnotw
2
jostts 03
Xo yredkrd sd3 es dove saoquuq wegotqat
Ls 1
(Oh motaoe@ @2ef Joh eseus9 IatdomixseM
e
il
i
To
(.3euA) 79
y
ov. OS Ht.A (ICL) Lod .v. e079 (2BVL) O98 .M.W.2.M rho)
50 Japhet
Gagne
|
: }
:
ee
(.S5.4) —
Isknomiz3eM (ps)LE aoktos® ,£00L 294 gnkbeooos? 19 A sent ¢ f
;
|
‘4 x
ya
| aa eae uae
:
Pat es
288.
a respondent or co-respondent, not to defend the action or to appear as a witness or to perform an illegal or improper act in order to furnish evidence or to pretend to do so, to give false evidence thus deceiving the Court or depriving it of an opportunity to learn the truth but an agreement for the reasonable support and maintenance of a husband or wife or children shall
not [E]
to be collusive."
DELAY There
Acts
of
mere
delay
must
not
is no
Canada or
and
of
India
a lapse
on
Unnecessary
some or
in
the
OL
cOuMtVvance.
The Court.
the
petitioner
a year
The
or
time or
:
of
delay may
has
that
he was
believing
that
his
of
not
any
delay
in
lead the
always
one
injury
the
in
the
inaction in
his
committed
its
on
Limitation
petition. but
Therefore, the
delay
satisfactorily it would
infer
or
the
relief
is
to
be
either
excused.
insincerity
a condonation
of
it,
poeects
tort
a matter
exercise
the
grounds,
a
not
had
If
to
inal teernence
insincere
wife
a bar
plausible
slumbered
because
not
is
under
presentation
would
eCielre
Court
more
or
acquiesence
,
who
is
prescribed
improper.
delay
dito
question
the
the
reasonable
or
Or
limitation
for
of
improper
complaint
:
shows
period
be unnecessary
explained
of
be deemed
for
the
discretion
sufficient
the
part
complaint
adultery
in
but
discretion in favour
comfort
of
the
for
of of a space
petitioner
the
sense
there
was
of
not
an
41 Gupte: Gyer v. Shaw v.
"Hindu Law of Marriage" (Bombay) Gyer A.I.R. (1949) Lah. 385 Shaw (1943) 3 W.W.R. 554.
(1961)
at
234:
see
also
Sopa
eg gon cageota noon
9)
s
Morjs
YO O32 s & @h.tseqg
. >) wotegoltr BaP titeveh ot reabr0 ae
deta?
2
>
od ,028 ob of bastetq:
sit gniviessb emia sonsbive sels? : vatavdxoqqgo ms to Jrgittvixqebx
rv:
ons Raoagto EM ae 10% Insaestas ne Jud d3u7d sonenoinisa bas sroqque sldsnoesst Usda nowblids to sitw 10 besdeud s to
he at i
" ovkew£los ed o3 bemesb od ton »
4
o*
j
(a)
‘YAIRG
‘
We
49
bsditoestg
sebnu
sds
nolissimtd
noktas tml to botzs¢ oa et s19/T Te Lae ek
yeish sat
to aoktetasssxq
ef3
.sotttisq
Letotsisnl
yas
tetist
aud
-beeuoxe
vsizesontent
sldtewalq
2: ,ebnuotg
od bivow
isint
tedjits
oF smo
et omrid
.xsqomqmi
12
ak ysish
vitrotostatisa
8 jom
xed
03
eft xot stbnI bas sbsas? to @35A
basi
2o cana, & 10
to asaes29qu
to sldsmoess1
bluew
yaleb
A
1P os 62 sonstsilibe:
stivns
ed jon
onc
smoe no heataless
rwsqgorqml
s 26 vrutst of3 at eonseetepos
et ek 3 Hoh ivr
O19
aaa efftoqu’abnogeb sfoum ae
Mee uatiite
lo motisoifqas
sata)
93, sgt Aatnieton: Ae 3k audT
ofa to nolistobienaoo
ed bluow 3f buns aseso
to yisitev 46 at setts yam yatab to tad od3
of2 Ile at esonetetees
to 9d ysm doldw eoluz
02 aldtezoqnt
joeqxe
at wel od? ~etoletesdT s292889
.et 92 es bisged alds at yrodostetise
MHOCRATIA BOATAAAM ANGMY TaTIATOT eaAa ©[1]
ebawortg viub sis
motjajosqxe
ek
oft
of 3msvetyq
Jdguoa
s et oteds
sidsndoassy
ek sa10vkb
J9A sor0vid
(sbeasD)
45 Maxon
(x) 2
oxusv? botagtobaaA i: ol
gotipitdadod
sft
& stonW
Yo ss1oeb
sae
@,
ot Juo
to # nobstos2
ae
2f esxoeb sd3 sauter
¢s8
sae 1p
oF OF 0d edi io
sé
;.bidI
.€va .A.4 LLA S (S2@L) swol .v syod oela ose
siaie™ ABE
.AWT.T VE (008L)
yd -v wok re », potatoL ..¥ 82 (SSO) 0oM vé (OS@L) ogs1.v oms10M
-€0@ .H.a CLA € Gee
-8A8 .Ad.T -B00I .
a!
ISS Ad. € (BBO) s
. Vaz
(bs)
8.5.0
Bs
(LdeL
:
oa
s
d
>
ce‘ .V tetqed) at boeevsetb \bastlA
obs
Tee
ANAS. smemaB hs ,
shag
hoe.
i
=
{)
Tha
ab ; j
290.
that
cohabitation
foreseeable the
Court
seeable such
period.
must
reasonable
will
occur
or
be resumed
It will
be
observed
refuse
a decree
expectation
future.
If
cohabitation
the
Court
being
is
the
opportunity
for
reconciliation
submitted
is
a reason
that
implies
to
IPG
be
The
to
that
fact
both
that
one
since
intention
relationship.
the
will
as
spouses not
the
Thus
the
the
would
there
in
a decree
to
v.
whether
any
judge
could
assume
tintaieeee
give
a
completely exhaustive definition of cohabitation, and certainly I am not going to attempt to do so, but at least a resumption of cohabitation must mean resuming a state of things, that is to say, setting up a matrimonial home together, and that involves a bilateral intention on the part of both spouses SO mbO do. i
47 The
Divorce
Act
(Canada)
48 G1942)
PleALL
ER)
553.
1967
Section
8(1).
foreof
that
the
considered. unless
there
to resume
so willing
Gueeyectalk
"T doubt
order
cohabitation
spouses
the
a
seem
be duly
is
is
possibility
be willing
spouses
in Mummery
provision
it would
may
refuse
this
within
adi qucnmene
matrimonial
in
to
resumed,
spouses of
that
cohabitation
an
of
a reasonable
under
concludes
or
order
Courts
insufficient
a bilateral
matrimonial
the
to believe
cohabitation. appear
Court
that
in doubt
established
for
is
it
of matrimonial
appropriate
It
if
within
would
necessarily or
resume
Lord
the
Merriman
' gokekvoiqg abdd xsbau ‘sada bevisede od Like 3E
Jaum a3ued add s st gxsda 1ndy esbolomos3b 24 e9709b's Seutss ~s10% ofa ntdziw
to soitajosqxus sidanoaasi molisotdedoo [stnomttism
to yailtdhaeog eit 03 e6 Iduob of et 2Ww0d 983 ir (stutut eidsose mas2
bluow
10°bedetidstes gated seltisstderoo fous
3! ,bemyeast
oj aed3 mwbzo nt \*saomnauo tbs as i9bzo oF axwod sM3 aot siskxqozqgs .bexshteqoo s7ad3
eeelow
an}
ylub sd yam eseuoge sai1s9eb 6 sade gl ton
io Diet se i paped x02 qi tas t0qqo eda
IlLiw oie
et 31
aan
tsdi3
a
gmuest
o3 gaiiitw sd star
biuow goilitw yitssgesoon
odd
smuesy
eseuoge
oe at essevoqa efi
Yo sno
soltsaikdedos [stcomiziam
of esavoge
10 saueae
djod jada avetied of moesst & al Sed3 3087 sAT
od oF 189998
tnuotokitwent
gonte
od? ot moliasini
s astiqat
Isistaltd
Letoomtztem
-qidenotssfor
av yiommM st aviT
asmkixsM biol 8+ smn
foltsiidsdos
:bejsje
& ovig blwos sgbut vas tsdtedw
I"
jdvob
Yo solzintteb eviteusdxs visasiqmo5 jon ms I yintsixe2 bae ,nolisitdsdos gasel ts tud ,o8 ob of JIqmg336 oF gntog assm deym molissidsdoo to motiqnvest 6s od ef Jes .egntht to stste 8 gnimvest
emo
[ailnomizism & qu gotiise
T 1%)
>
,yse
i
Istetelid p eoviovat tad} bos ,red3sg02 eeavoge d3od 20 318q 943 mo noktnstnE
ego
ob 03 08
Fy 3 feet
ite ee
.
es
rn -
.f
-
eee
-
-
Pas
(D8 motaos2 C8@l (sbsnsd) 35A sox0vid onT J
i
at
Velie ye!
La?
*
ped
A.9 IIA rt (saert)
294
It
is
submitted
a strictly marriage
limited
is
is no
or
resumed.
reasonable
(ii)
Protection
Where
a decree
breakdown,
the
the marriage
the
making
the
that
Court
for
the
purpose
reasonable
where
Divorce
Act
a permanent to
matrimonial
is
refuse
of
sought
of
the
order
an
of allowing
because
will
have
breakdown
be drawn
is
that
cohabitation
will
of
the
decree
if
the
decree
would
arrangements
arrangements
the
inference
that
divorce
granting
language
may
natrual
of
of
occur
Children
must
the
9(1)(d)
because,
prospect
of reasonable
Although
the
the
of
of
Court
and
Section
application
established,
there be
that
for
the marriage
there
their
are
prejudicially
does
adjournment
of
the
the
an
opportunity
for
not
the maintenance
of
of
affect
maintenance.
provision
parties
children
so
provide,
proceedings
the
it
appears
for
divorce
of making
children
of
the
5 5 marriage. Thus decree
mere for
this
for
bar
to
divorce
divorce
is
sought
nature denying
sought
of
complaint
protection
under
is on
the
in the
to
the
the matrimonial
absolute ground
petition
children faults.
and
applies
only
of marriage
for
divorce
of marriage In England,
where
a
breakdown.
gives
where
no
The
justification
of divorce
similar
but
not
is
identical
49 The
Divorce
Act
(Canada)
1968
s.
9(1)(e).
50
Julien
Payne:
"The
Divorce
Act
(Canada)
1968"
supra
note
14 at
29.
s£eS
aved Lisp oit Calnkd adihho” jvsstchasch
ahaa
vlsolae's Io miobisstd tnsiemnieq s Stow -sausoed nofsentiqqs bettati ef sgstzism sadd+ ak meth sd 01 edtorotat Leutsen ‘sd ,beriebidstas oessy om aksi9f3 ay900 Iftw notaagidados Istromttism Jedd sosqaoig sidem 9dx10 bembas hg pes
aexblid Jonokseagoxt (th) .
Pas
eT
ig
;
: :
Se
;°Rs
blyow 9971595 edd to _gntineyg si
4tedd
Ce sonsnedatem easaqqs
ti
es.rovib
rot agatbesscoxg
gnidsa
efi
adj
sft
oft
to jnomrivetbs
.wobisexd
bos ogai tam eri
sldemoasst to sgsugnsl
to gnitdes sii dguonis IA
ons
ae rebro ysm J1u09 eds
te astirsq
of3
gatwolls
to somanotniem
sf3
tot
to yilaustoqqo
to neabitds
tol etnomegnasiis
esob motetvorg
Jor
o8
.sbivoig
saum Jtu0D of]
Yt astosh ef2 sevis2
to mexbitdo o1s aiod? juetie yiistotbytetg
| to sst0eb & padi
atk pe
Idguoe
ogstizem of2 20 sepeoed
to weiaee tae toi
eimemognst1s
9fdssoasst
O¢
« stedlw vino eatiqas aft
.awobiserd
pokisotitteuft
on asvia
et soyovib Isotsnobt
gon
sgstaren
sstovib
bas stutoeds to brvotg
-sgsiitism
at sstovib of aad elds andT
ad3 ao tdguoe at sorovib
10% aotiiteq
tedd
sft
of taisiqaos
102 estosb
to etutsn
sroMm -
ino old 02 mo¥3osI071q gatyasb rot ad to mexbl to sxéitw sgstrr
tud twslimte
,baslgni
al
ative?
ed3 isbay Isisomtxiem
Idguoe
. eS (9) (D@ v2 88@L (sbsnsd) JA sorOvid sAT
02.
Doe « age) provision
apply
(iii)
The ensure are
Unduly
Divorce
that
made
Court
Court
to
Harsh
Act
refuse
the
either
standard.
or
to
injustice
real
of
and
undue
The
of
onus
injustice
"wife'’ Court that
is
would
of the
or
was
not
to
the
would
Matrimonial
Causes
Act
to
loss but
being
prove
of
that
the
duty to
1965,
Section
Cf).
2 Ontario
Repert
765.
54 15th
May
1970
Ont.
C.A.
Unreported.
some
status
in Dygas
unjust
DS
(1969)
beyond
The
harsh Ontario
one
or High
imposing
undue
refuse
subjective
respondent
the
5 Seetion®9(1)
cause
should
of
v. the
either
aL
The
the
as
spouses
decree.
be unduly
or unjust"
Court
both
to
to
hardship grant
connotes the
normal
a decree.
it was or
for
nonce:
decree
the
spouse,
harsh
on the Court
a divorce
would
harsh
the
respondent
that
v.
injustice
of
accompany
stated
decree
spouses
granting
petitioning
of Appeal the
the
the
divorce
"unduly
detriment
on
granting
a divorce
hardship
the
to
In Johnstone
If
a duty
for maintenance
where
phrase
of
substantial
consequences
or
one
1968°- imposes
decree
the
; of marriage.
Unjust
precedent
spouse.
, dissolution
for
arrangements
a condition
interpreted
test
or
(Canada)
a subjective
The
x tae petitions
all
reasonable
as
must
unjust
to
33.
undue
harshness
of "husband"
ea Court spouse.
and
the Ontario to
determine
it.
har
ses
-ogokttsm 2a nokdutonath 303, soisdasiasaiel “notetvos at eee i bakcag AOR of 3100) eift HO yiub » aseoqmt Sta3et (sbaded) “cane di
i
asevoge
*
oT
+
eS)
ete
900%
(49
>)
tod $02 ‘sonsnotnism xo? adnomegnbt1s ‘sldanosse7 jens simens yn
.98%99b oorovib & gmttasig o3 tnsbeostg notttboos 5 an Shem ote
10 HisasH ylubau ed bluow sozovtb oteflw 99198b 9d? sewtear Jevm J1u00 digtH ofteta0 sri
€ coseadol .v snosantiol al, .savoqs tsdate 02 seutaw
gittzoqmk aco as “Jevtay xo deed ylubau” sesxdg 913 betexqrezat 310d qifabyed .31
bluow ssto9b satovib s 12 ,basbesde
subau save
Jaa1g of
9evtet
asjonnos
aoauoge
gated satveutsl
svitostdua
faertorr sdj3 baoyed
edi
3209
bivoda
tmabnogest
siz
10 Yo sno o2 9ottautal
subau
bos "baedaur’
otyein0 offs * sntmretob
smoa
Jala
Jo eudste
sd? 03 Ijnombrzjob istinsiedue
svomg) 03 tasbnoqte1
to aaol ef
sd3
sav .¥ aegyd ot.tod
o3 t1yoD sit
-seuoge
to te93 sdf
xo gtdebrsd svbru
.se9tosbh s to gntinerg acomiersd
svisostdue s
of3 ico eeansyupsenod
sid ‘no el evao
yaaqmooos
bes Iser
sit
bivow sotseutat 16
,sevoqge gataotstieq edd to, "stiw"
io yJub od? esw 31 3ada_ begste IseqqA to J10D
t9dits oF sautay 10 deysd
jon esw ee9199b oft tsdz *
“ee noktose®
,2d0L
toA eseusd
—
Ls
2
tstiomt3i oT ———
Dd (rye notjose be
’
ns
Ce
ee stl
ha
TR
Udy ohne, abies Sle oareee
293.
In Seminuk that
since
wives
or
the
women
for
maintaining
an
the
Under
Since
the
it
all
status
is
breakdown,
social
the
[G]
RECONCILIATION
56
change
,
Canadian
(1969) Divorce
Act
some
vice
Bench
to husband
of
their
may
be
former
equally
stated
and
wife,
privileges
as
responsible
versa.
that
is
one
of
while
the
statute
‘eres
is not
bars
are
in which
society
should
embodied
unknown
the whole
depends
incorporating
Legislature the
breakdown
above-mentioned
Reconciliation
68 W.W.R.
rights
the wife
of marriage
stability
Indian
also
=e)
and
as
Queen's
Law
the
submitted
equal
lost
Act
of marriage
bars
The
husband
Hindu
Saskatchewan
granted
this
concept
statute,
interest,
Thus
Under
(iv)
the
Act
correspondingly
immunities.
Indian
Sen tnbiae © the
Divorce
and
Since
v.
keep
the
Hindu
society
much
concept
in mind
to
in the
the
upon
Law.
has
marriage.
of marriage above
mentioned
accordingly.
oa
Provision
Or is ak. far more
:
stringent
249.
1968
(Canada) "8,(1) On a petition for divorce it shall be the duty of the court, before proceeding to the hearing of the evidence, to direct such inquiries to the petitioner and, where the respondent is present, to the respondent as the court deems necessary in order to ascertain whether a possibility exists of their reconciliation, unless the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it would clearly not be appropriate to do so, and if at that or any later stage in the proceedings it appears to the court from the nature of the case, the evidence or the attitude of the parties or either of them that there is a possibility of such a reconciliation, the court shall (a) adjourn the proceedings to afford the parties an opportunity of becoming reconciled; and (b) with the consent of the parties or in the discretion of the court, nominate (i) a person with guidance, or
experience
or
training
in marriage
counselling
or
-€eS
Lannie Winnie a ia**end beseié duaiil 3 *nsaup' abedtoset cotiw bas basdeud ofasdgit Lsups beine7g 9A eotovid sA3 eonte ted3 gogsltviaq
esviw xemio0h thei? to smoe teol vigatbaoqest202 asmow 10
aldiesogqest es yilsups 24 yom
-set3iquamt bas
btw af3 390Aatid zohau
BBISY 9olv va baadeud eld gninisjotsm roi
wad batt seba. (vt) oft at betbodms
gor
sgatrtam
ef nwobisord
ef2 sonte
to Jqsono9
,stutste astbal ‘wal ubatii od Awondiow 9x8 axed bsaottmem-svods sit {fs asd yistoor
.ogsivism
siodw sd
aoqu foum ebasqeb
egsiitism to tqeomoo
benotdasm
dotdw at sno at sgeitisa
yisiooe
oft to yatitdste
sia gatistoqroxnt
svods oft bata ot qsed biuoda -vigntbio205
snepniye
s10m
182
et oe otetvost
olidw ted3
ns
,Jestetal
Islooe
petiimdve
ek 3t evdT
sda ,awobissid
sxuisletged astbel studsia
on3 soat2
to auitese
sid egusiis bas_oels
exsd
worTATIIQM0Is4
=[9]
nobistitosooey
Cas
metbsas)
sdT
..W.W 8d (edeL) * a
sound er Sesok (sbsas2 zeq se m0 -(1).8" sotstib rotvi ~?woe. oft to yiub asia ed Ilede at ento sx0ted o3
gutbssso1q dove tooxtb o3 ,sanebive odd to gatzeer sd3 oF of3 03 estitupst ,fmseer¢ ek toobrogasx ed? otedw bas xz9a0lstisq on3
roqest atpsteoas o7 rob1o ak yisaasosm emsb tuvon sd3 es tisb g s rediodw sit eselnu .nottslitonooss 1tted3 to atatxe yititdtseo 93 to aeonszemuo1ts jon ylxeels bivow 2i jaf3 stten 8 dove Io sta 9e8> bas ,oa ob oF saatiqorqgs sd -o1g 9f3 mt sgsse is3el yme 10 ssdt ts 2k etasqqs 1t egnibss> -fve sd% ,9e89 sft to etugen edz mort Jsvop edd 03 tts sily 10 9om9b sbutis to sft xsq s at oxedt 2zed3 meds to ted3te Io aoti to yvilitdteeoq dove # [Iede too sft ,motsstitonoos: 7 ciuotbs (s) ait rq Io yalausxoqqo op eotsisq odd brotis of egakbesso1 osd gatmo t onose bos ;beLt ' (d) datw sda o tasanc to .J1v09 sf2 to mobjeigeib edd at to eoti1eq ed mon sisni .
soetsg = (1) x0 gailisenvoo sgsiszam at gntate13 10 sonekzeqxe d3tw xo ,sonsbiug
7 »
iva
: 7
: 77
-
es;
294.
than
the English?’
have
been
ments the
the
desire
of Section
judges
statement
at in
as
they are mandatory te of
8 have
the Bonin
start v.
“Before
the
Joint
Committee
resulted
mainly
of
judgments.
their
This and
in brief
does
not
in fact,
the
dutiful
Typical
is
appear
require-
remarks the
to
by
following
Bonin:
proceeding
with
the matter,
I
directed inquiries to the petitioner in order to ascertain whether or not a possibility existed of her reconciliation with her husband, as is required of me by Section 8 of the Divorce Act. The respondent was not present in Court. I was satisfied from her replies that there was no possibility of the spouses living together again as man and wife and, accordingly, I directed the case to proceed
in the usual manner."
56
(continued)
(ii)
in special circumstances, some other suitable person, to endeavour to assist the parties with a view to their possible reconciliation.
(2) Where fourteen days have elapsed from the date of any adjournment under subsection (1) and either of the parties applies to the court to have the proceedings resumed, the court shall resume the
proceedings." oy
Divorce Reform Act 1969 (England) "3, (2) If at any stage
of proceedings
for
divorce
it appears
to
the
court that there is a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation between the parties to the marriage, the court may adjourn for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a reconciliation."
58 Ruth L. Deech: "Comparative Approaches England". (1972) Mod. L.R. 113 at 12.
59 GL969)
V5 DLR.
(3d)
533
(N 5.8.0.) 6
to Divorce:
Canada
and
TAT, |
bins
vl
des
eeoty'a ts J
Chun
ta
boi
ae?
ot 499qq8 -Jor asobvatdT °° eyosebaast ete yorties“ventgnt odd !
Ag
-oziups od) ydon? nt bas eo7Iinmod satel eft Ro sitesb eis nosd sved to atasar 8 yd eltemet Lothivb istad mt yiniso betivess ever pots992
edt ef fsctqyT gnivoliot
.stasngbut feltYo dxsde ed? Js eegbut sao
C2, atmo .v nino ak Yasdstese I ,192%se 99 dtiw gntbessesq sxoted” oda o3 eetttupat
bedositb
s tom 10 todiodw atsixeoas
of x9b70
at wsrettiieq -
colistirenossx red to bsselxe y3titdtesoq am to bettupex at as ,basdeud rsd datw
yd
290A sotovit sda to 8 motias2
sfT
wt
.#2xw09 at texeesx1q Jom asw inebaogesz
I
arsd3 tad estiqex 19d mort bottetiae ssw gnivil eseueqe of3 to yiiiidieeog on Baw tel3ego3
~bes siliw bas osm 3s atsgs
I ,ylgatbsooon
of sesa edd besosztb
bsesetq
" zenasm Isveu sdt at
i o¢
(beynitnos)
_nosieq sldstkve woiv
ot
sted
ys
tnemaxvefbs
reiio smoe
5 diiw
to 936b
sda
estixaq
moxt
Ietosge ak (kt)
,esonstamotto
oi tetses o3 auovasbns oF -molistitonoos1 eldtasog
eysb asesd1u0l
avsd
bsaqsis
(S)
etorW
tobnu +syoo edi o3 aotiqgs esti1sq ofa to sodite bas (1) noksoseduesve oF ompesr
gaa
Ilede
J1u0s
,bemuss1
eft
egntbeesorq
sda " agnibssno1g
ve eel
toh
( god) .£", (S). 22 38, Yas oft of axeaqqa 3t eorovth xot egmibessoxq to sga3e 3102 jadi nofietitsmess: s to ysiitdieeeq sldancess: & at eisd3 dove 402 mivotbe vem T1yoo oft ,agetuxsm eds 03 astiisq ods nsowsed Jootis ot obsm od of siqmos3s sidaneo3 313 ednid3 ji es bolisq.
gh '
i.
:
_
“ pokistitonoos: s fave
sviIh:
pdosed wt dow
ner,
sbot (S82), "bastgoa ms
@
y
aa
:
~
Gil:
pepe ttege?
yi
Cy
& GE)
aaeeeg 2
'
; r '. st
nl
y
i ,.
293%
There Section
haye
been
attempts
8 prectdaress
reconciliation
is nothing
while
they
can
and the
do.
by judges
in cases other
to lighten
where
one
one
wishes,
In Paskiewich
v.
party
one
the
burden
refuses
judge
has
PABRVEWi Che
of
a
held
Gregory
that
there
J.
Said
"TY am satisfied
that
the respondent,
aware
perhaps only by hearing at trial and for the first time unbiased evidence of what he has been doing to his wife and perhaps still unable to understand why she wants a divorce, desperately wants a reconciliation. If I
thought there was 'a possibility of a reconciliation’ (as it is put in section 8(1) of the Act), I would readily accede
to
his counsel's submission. I might in a case where it seemed not inappropriate even go farther than the Act specifically authorizes and reserve judgment so as to prevent the start of the running of the fourteen days referred to in section 8(2) and thereby give the parties unlimited time in which to try and make their marriage a success. On the evidence I find that there is no possibility of a reconciliation. I am satisfied on the evidence that the petitioner will not go back and live with her husband as his wife and I hold that there will be a reconciliation cannot create ‘a possibility of a reconciliation" where the
other Some
lawyers
following
method.
spouse
are
is unreconcilable."
carrying
When
out
a client
their
first
duties
seeks
under
advice
Section
on
60 Trites
w.
Trites
(1.969)
2 DLR.
(1970),
61 Gd)
622.
9 D. E.R
(3d)
.246
(NsS3S.C.).
divorce
7 by the his
; i Piri veh
=}
do nobsud nit, naxiyti 03 eosbut-yd aaquoaze mead ovad Sanit g \f nokdos2 8 eseviet yiteq 200 stonw asess mk bain °°exubsson
eft oftdw nokistitonose7 o1983 Jedd bisd esd ogbut ono ,zedetw eno tedto
Lt yroge7) Pdotwotsinss wv dolwotilead ni vob nso’yor gatiisomet 1
™S
¢/
7)
@29¢2
the
sbraa
,isabnogest oft taeda botiatiee mI"
siswe
aft 10% baa Iskyd 2s gaitused yd yino sqarizsq asd of Jantw to sonebive beestdnw smty derki [(tte eqatixeg bo’ stiw etd od gntob ased ,sotovib 5 etasw ede yilw bostatabay oF oidarmu .nobistikonoss: s atnoaw yledstoqasb I tl s to vIHiidiasoq s' asw sx9fi> Sdguont
notjose ak tuq et tt 3s) ‘notsatiionoset
od ebsoos ¥ltbsex blvow I ,(3aA sda to (18 JA eit osdd
vLisstitosqe
aoskyodjus
bemesa3b s1rsiw
tom
stekxgorqgsnt
og neve
w'Leanvo> ei
.moleatmdve
a ok tigkm I
oeso
xeds1st
oft Inevetq o3 @8 ce Jnemgbut svises7 bas aysb asottyot eft to gatanut ef2 to 31538
bas
evtg yds1ed3
ot dottw
yx3
.se9ooue
nO
et atent
on
oti
siss15
od
yd \ aotsoe2
bas si3
batt
isda
sfi no boktatise
test? somebive
og json Iliw rsnolshIseq
notishitonoset
vor
6 od ILiw sxsd3
s to yatitdkeeog s'
'nottstltonosex
" sidsiionossimw
ek savoqe
xsbnu astiub 1tted3 tuo gatyris>
isto
916 arsywel anmoe
.bodsem antwollot
ald sotovth no soktvbs aiese gexth tosiio s sedW
.(.9,2.2.4)
.
s to ysilidiaaog
bilod I bas stiw atd en baadaui
Sonne.
edi orsdw
eat
estsieq
I somebtve
boa Assd
svif
gads
bejimtiav
a sgsiiism tisd? swam
.motiatitonoos:
ms I djtw
(S)8 mottoeeat o3 betisiet
mt smt3
OAS (bE) .Ad.d @ (OTOL) eo3tat.v eostat @
ii.
q
>a
-S83
ij iy
2
(be) A
;
'
Ral ". 7
09
palate
aS (@BL) ‘9
ier)
296.
lawyer
gives
pertaining
he has
him a questionnaire
to
the
considered
counselling
The
To
here
embodied
the
bars
except
that
up,
following
Divorce
Act
(Canada)
nature
that
advocate
where
the
it would
acting
on (a)
and
asks
defences
they
are
are
the
elicit
asks
the
lawyer no
to
petitioner
and
then
have
Section
also
information whether
lists
marriage
considers
his
more.
9(1)
steps
measures
for
been
discussed
4 and
towards
need
no
further
reconciliation.
reconciliation
under
1968.
circumstances
clearly
behalf draw
not
of to
their the
of
the
the
case
or
attention
of
the
of
such
to do
his
so,
client
Act
effecting
reconciliation
of
respondent
of the Divorce
object
are
be appropriate
a petitioner
provisions
of
the
in Section
and
to
of reconciliation
locality;
fulfilled
sum
Except
questionnaire
possibility
duties
discussing
The
in the
safeguards
discussion
the
the
agencies
reconciliation
while
case.
designated
that
where
the
a
a lawyer
spouse
must:
those
have
as
possible
parties
to
the
marriage;
(b)
inform or
or
her
discuss
of
the
facilities
endeavour
possible
(c)
client
guidance
might his
his
to
spouse
his
known
assist with
reconciliation;
with
marriage
client
to him
the
a view
client to
that and
their
and,
the
the
client's
reconciliation
her
spouse:
s.
7(1).
counselling
possibility with
his
or
of
or
oes
-
aotismroint itotie. 92 bs jangiesb
iedisdw tenottiieq oft elas, stiaaoottsoup istcig ilansiatiod phatase . sgsizvism ataif bag notteiltonossy to yititdteeoq si3 bezeblteaos asd ori ald exzsbtenos medt 19ywal ot jyitisool os at esioneges gatileenuos -9tom on ates bas bslitifu? beeauneth vedjiut
ased avsd ([)@ solioa2 at bekbodms
on boon bas 4 nokjos2
-totistilonose: tabnu
abiswod
sotssilkonoset
zo veywel
to 318
eqste oels s1a ysd3 tad? to
eexvesom
9889
943
92003
jnsboogesx tuetlo
a8 svsed ted3
eidtesog sii
ald
of3 Sts
.qu muve oT
(aban)
129A soxovid
ed’
sd. 3om yiuselo
to soljmssis
olidw
yetwollot
stefw
sri3
tqsoxd
bluow it Jsd3 stujen
to tsHoltijegq B lo ifeded ao gritos siz 03 wevb
stss0vbe
(s)
toA asotovid siz 30 emoletyoxg
sisdw gatsosite
o3 estizeq
ofdT
3tqeoxe arsed notsevoetb
to esonasemuotto
6 .o8 ob o3 s3airqoxzqqa
:teum sevoga
ebiavgsise
o2 esonatab bas axed od3 geteevsatb
-8a°L s fove
astiub nokistilosaosss
od2
sii j3ostdo stked3
to ootjstitsomeos:
od
io
poasizysm
gnilisenvon ogetuyem sf3 to Jnsifo etd moat ted3 mtd of awoml bos tnoitio eft
ttsd3
estititost
tetess
,bas
tdgia
sidteeoq
etd dsiw aavselb
to ald d3tw nolistitomoser e'ansifs 93 -(DS
.e
-
-
isd xo sid
;nottsil[loness1
'/ Yo ystitdteeogq sf3 tnekin
.
sonabiug +0
ot szvovsebns
o3 wotv 6 Miiw sevoge
td)
teevoge ted
:
a
aay
is
ZR 4 The petition
lawyer with
requirements: The
main
reconciliation
or
advocate
presenting
a certificate
s.
(1)
he has
of
the
Act
those
which:
allow
a 90-day
for
the
giving
rise
reduce
must
with
endorse
these
ss.
bar
2(d)
of
of
the
an
opportunity
of cohabitation
power
proceeding
and
s.
to
without
condonation,
the
from
bar:
court
encourage
of reconciliation
condonation
the
to
period
interrupting
discretionary give
designed
to the
separation:
(3)
complied
trial
purpose
or without
(2)
petition
7(2).
provisions are
that
the
period
of
9(3)(b);
an
absolute
to a
9(1)(c);
to
adjourn
afford
of becoming
the
the
hearing
parties
reconciled;
Sas):
(4)
give or
the
court
suitable
in becoming
(5)
provide court
is not
in any
or
that
legal
that,
as
wife
that
to
to
appoint
assist
reconciled:
a person
s.
so
competent
the
the 8(1);
by a
disclose
to him
nominee
parties
compellable
to
made
a qualified
nominated
or
proceeding
purpose,
provide and
person
communications
capacity
(6)
power
of
the
admissions
in his court
for
\isz, 21.1); discussions
which
relate
to
between their
husband
possible
the
Wak:
|
|
|
Fes
odt sat0bas Jeum notsiseq ona. gnbaneaeag, s2ec0vbs xo.soywal dT
||
eer datw botiquoo eaden sadaessotRt3x99\6 dttw nokstieq ive SL they @ GN 90), setnementupes
aby pees
HM
agatwosns 03 beagtesb oA sit Yo amotetvory nism ofT
sHotdw enor? sts motierftonossx noktatidados
to bokteq isixd yeb-08 es wolls
auodtiw aolistiioseses .totissobros to bolysq
te ssoqiug sd3 102
saz gatiqurrejot
od
motbs
esijisq
sft
i:bsibonooat
.a
30
souba1t
(S)
:zed yxsnolis1setb
of teswoq
biolia
ie
seolseth 63 anibesssorq
Isgal ys st
eid ot mtel ox obsa enoksaatnummo> 10 tot 2105
_ to sentmon od3 85 ween
(DES 2
(A)
gnimoosd at
oa poker & tsd3
sideflaqans to i
enokeetmbs
of
: sa0qzuq ‘dais
bradeud nsswasd anoteauset® sails fe ake eidteeog xieds 03. oseiendokdw oliw bas
at
re b es
Yo asd of2 03 selt gatvig
:(d) (£)@ bas (b)S .e22 & 02 gtuloeds
(1)
(e)
296s
reconciliation disclosure
protected
from
whether
such
(quaere:
' discussions a court
are
not
nominee
in
the
are
presence
so
of
protected):
s'th20 €2)i. Under
the Hindu
Court
that
shall
be
before
its
instance’ to
cast
are the
the phrase
not
case,
after The
proceeds
the
with
Court
therefore,
the of
the
petition the
the
is
may
should the
about
submitted
of
the
on
Does
it
be observed
seems
any
therefore
proposes to
petition,
the words
be
to
that
an
between used
before
the
in the
not
mean
that
the
only when
any the
should
relief? Court be made
parties
by
and
provision
to grant any relief under this Act, it of the Court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between
the parties."
happy.
in the
23(2)
"Before proceeding shall be the duty
tend
and
63 Section
a
Similarly
court
grant
attempt
it
about
they
also
relief
by the
the
first
Court.
are
to
Act,
bring
because
trial
grant
a reconciliation that
the
this
to the
any relief"'
not
Court
‘in
provision
only
is given
under
endeavour
words
in this
or may
relief
to
The
to grant
legislature
hearing
any
petition.
of
a discretion
instance
parties.
provision
to bring it
grant
placed
Court
dismiss
by this
intention
the
proceeding
the
may
hearing
to
1955°>
of reconciliation
"before
latter
Act
first
happily
duty
petition
cast
in the
between
In any
duty
proceeding
duty
reconciliation
Marriage
should
Lt
ante
li cada
eh:
doive! woaseie "sbashipy’ avieatbabh 0" ult wanstaeg”
©
einer te
Yo enrsse7q off at ton ecateabers py rey at 30A sgebhvxeM wboil a3
196m set25b A
.atuloeds sham eu Uisaueset
eex%pb s to swien 99 ak od Bluow at ;9e799b Isaotatbno> 8.208 at f a?
(DEL mokt292 ,2eCL 399A ogetzssM bak axfT O98
e
ee
eneaeiern,
4 beet) Deh. ax Pane ae
305.
absolute to
determining
a judgment
It
any
is
submitted
provision
for
be weighed
against
taking first that
those
before give
false
decree
marry
of
who
the
the
decree
to
scope
this
therefore
give
in which
should
prior
orders
proposed
the
and
would
be
Marriage
Act,
1955,
does
decree
passed
those
thesis.
of
parties
the
an
of
interest
law
should
also
of
intervene
made
absolute.
been
made
absolute
has
be made ancillary
Only
been
the
orders
is
thus
outline
of
is a decree
in
the
to
months
will
are
such
is
to
free
to
A number
It
it
so
open
by death.
as
the
suit
they wish
parties
that
months
the
three
if
by the
three
keep
must
interest
submitted
for
have
community
proceedings.
in detail
it
not
is not beyond
ancillary
the
orders
are
mentioned.
The
Divorce
and
upbringing
of
Court
may
make
Sunanda
Vampa,
an
the
children
order of
with
respect
the marriage,
10
Vempa
equivalent
be abused
these
dissolved
on divorce
a brief
and
reconciliation
is
marriage
not
nisi
Moreover,
the
It
is
be a decree
can
chance
It
under
of
individual.
proceedings.
is passed.
has
may
the
process
decree
After
of
the
another
Effect
the
and
interest
absolute
The
if
nisi
objections
(ii)
as
Hindu
collusive
have
before
ancillary
care
that
in India
parties
reconcile
the
or
a decree
the
the
is a matter
community of
of
that
decree
This
the
status
in ea
absolute.
of
the
v.
A.I.R.
[1957]
A.P.
424.
for i.e.,
the
custody,
which
party
ee
svtopm ifee a0 »
'
7
i
orld sadsbod2iadva al 41
svei Jon ag0b ceel ) (LE aokice? ,80@1 ,(ebaned) JoA soxovid pe: | 18 .U.d.% ID [V8CL] yoeqmsd .v yosqmed
of
~
eal el €2€ .A,1.9 OLF [A90f] Leeael .v Lisanal
oer
| sS | yfemei" ebignE ("war la won) an (b .88@£) BAS (bo ge (20L
307%,
are
vested
provided
powers
in
for
may
the
courts
a party
to
to
as
A power,
in an
to order a gross
any
term
not
pay
to
and
other
is annulled
action
the wife
or
for
the
or
benefits
or
annual her
during
monthly
sum
to
sum
of
secure
of money
to for
rapes ©) life” and/or
their
joint
of money
to
lives
for
her
a
support
maintenance.
A power,
upon
to
either
order
secure
or
to
granting the
pay
a decree
husband
a lump
sum
to
or
periodic
sums
of
the
children
Tee
A power,
to
where on
order
co-respondent of
the
the
the
that
wife
the
husband
ground
damages shall
and
for
of
or
her
has
his
the
spouse
obtained
wife's
awarded
be
of divorce,
the wife
the maintenance of
his
nisi
or
for
divorce
settled
children
of
a
adultery,
against for
and/or
the
the
benefit
the
is Domestic
Relation Act R.S.A.
1970
Ghap.
113,
Section
23(1):.
16
Domestic Relatiors Act R.S.A. 1970 Chap. 113, Section 23(2). Matrimonial Causes AcE,“R.5.0. “1960,-Chy 232. Secs 2. OQvween“s-Bench=Act.R.ofoe Loop eeCh, -255) SeC nro).
17 The
Divorce
Act
to
dissolved.
annulment
husband
; exceeding
the wife
weekly
(iii)
which
and
follows:
marriage,
(ii)
maintenance
a marriage
be categorized (i)
order
1968,
Section
11.
be
The
- TOE
5
i
‘
:
2 |
.
;
|
:
sHF nt bedesy ors | tabi 03e105 od of ettfened sedjo bas soashointsm
8°102 ‘bsblvor oft .bsvfoeath Yo befivana et doliiw ogstrzem5 ofyJ1sq rawolfo? as tabtivgesa0 od yam BTSwoq
7
ie dueutvnns 303 sakise on et ome ,sgestiism
oft 1asb10 oF
o3 hasdaud
oJ sto92
o,
40% yanom io me [eunss 10 eeorg 8 otiw ed3 tesl gnibesoxs
o3 to\bas oe ert
yarnom
102
xsd
dyoqque
enaitub siiw
tiedt
tntof
sp eavil
jon miss
oF ysq
sii
to mye yidanom
to ylissw
* gannkhontelt
to tain ssi0eb
.sot0vib
‘yo\bas
10 swe
nitbotrsq
ame
e \
s bentstdo
.viszivbs edt titened
qmul
isd ro aid
sevoge
oJ
TO Ssiuo9P
93
102i
sit
to maxzbiido
sti
asd breadaud sd? s1adw
.rswoqg
A
(EEL)
aid to bavorg sit mo sotovtb bebisws
tentegs 103
8s ysq
(rr)
03
wab1r0
redste
to sonsneiniam
t ecetisee
a'stiw
es
sAd
basdeurd
to
od sitiw sia
bas
,19wog A
soqu
s gaidneyg
yas
ssgemeb
od [iste bslaisea
Jada
rebro
o2
amebmoqasei~oo
git to sorbiids sit tot bus stiw edi to
.
=
,EL1 .qadd OFCL sé. 2.9 aoAmrabtalen ottasmod er .
.CA)ES aotr202
‘LQS)ES motsoe2 .CLf .qedd OFOL .A.2.H JoAmipbaled obsesm0d eS
E RRM gph,simp a'mmpp ~(SYEE 09% xES) AD e2AR | aSES
292
:
ld
Oaer
0,8.
0A
ageus)
{siaomix3sM
If moktoe2 ,88@L 390A sorovid sit
Al
I
.
308.
cereiied. se to rylemen
i;
,21sbz0
4 styose of baadevd of9 gatxtupsy rsbzr0 ah (s) @8 sawe otbotysq x0 mus qowl dove ysq o7
a3 102 aldanosses
atatds tavoo eds
2tedjis yo ited io ssasasinian
ai
a
_ bas ,ottw of (1) oy
-ogabsem oft to moxbibda ds (tt)
ae oi4utegt
1® Szuo8e ot sitiw ora agtthages tebe mA ( -
n>
L argbaaharcinbeyrine.
pemeeeeer
0
se
ee
BO.
It may
order
permanent
several In
the
award such
be pointed
absence
of
any
proceedings
courts.
(v)
Made
power
granting
of
corollary
claim
if,
the
a decree if
the
resume
maintenance It
rare,
may
therefore
her
separate
should
be
court
of
and
of
the
the
has
been
Columbia,
expressly
the
principles
courts
and
applied
Act
corollary
(Canada)
divorce’. for
the
1968
Such
divorce
is
orders
of
the
cohabitation
would
in
by the
and
to
cannot
‘upon
be made,
Rejection
not
appear for
of
unreasonable
divorce,
re-establish
the
their
the
respective
obligations. for
be unjustifiably maintenance.
It
empowered
Relations Act R.S.A.
Brown
the
exercisable
petition
these
consequences
denied is
reasonable
accordingly to
order
to
ensue
and
provision
submitted
maintenance
1970,
Chap.
113,
Zab
ve
Opeer ra
pursuant
is dismissed.
circumstances
dismissal
orders
Sec.
Queens BenchyAct R.S.S..L905, Chap.o/oesec,.93. Matrimonial Causes Act R.S.0., 1960 Ghap. 232 Sec. Brown
in
to maintenance
in
favor
[1909]
10 W.ueR.
120)
(B.C.).
23.
17s
2.
a spouse
for
that
20 Domestic
enacted
authorizing
right
to
Nisi
to make
above
however,
statutorily
British
proceedings,
upon
Divorce
the
proceedings
statute
Decree
matrimonial
rights
is
Upon
petition
in
empowering
-
nisi
in consequence
parties
2
the
of
therefore,
provincial
in nullity
F : ecclesiastical
11(1)
Alberta,
is dependent
Order
legislation
in nullity
including
of maintenance
section
that
maintenance
provinces,
The
out
him
the of
or
courts either
i beOLE
i
-
;
aS
‘
|
=
;
,
|
-_*
Se ele 2
7
;
7
:
ah
7 -
eo
7
i
ye
,
:
7
f
.
On
ae
O° orxeia0 BAe .shinuiod delsiva ~sazedIA gatbulook ,esontvorg Lexsves of guksisodive yiseerexe stutsse, Ietoatvorq yas 20 sonseds adi ot nt sonsnetoisa of adpix odt .egatbescorg yiiliua at, sonsastatem to biaws eds yd betiaqs asiqionixg sd1 noqu toabasgeb et egaibessorg dove ES edu03
Isottestesisoa
=
‘
telVi ssxost
7 0) JaBveTwq
etob to elite el 86Q1
sideaturaxe
sogu'
.obam sd tomas. sid
.beeatwath
to solzesteh
sidsnossstayu
483 avisoeqeet
ton bivow
ts9qqs
tol molstasq
,aotovib ated
deltidetee-at
JoA ‘sotovid
eesgatemyotto
ato 9 #f3 Jedd
yadite
bottimdwe
aokises
(Q)IL
adj
tb ,stoteied3 yrslloz0s
of3 at misio
svods
ods to Isesimetbh edd to someupsanos
sesi3 10%
,revewon
yideltiveuf{ay
bolnsb
ylgntbresss
bas ejdgtt
somsnsiaisa
.s1ex
yom
stetsqse
9d
lo toval mi sonsteraism tsbro 02 betswoqmea yilzosusste
f
®
at 31
od sroisied3
.somensinism
al 31
at .tt estitag
Ietnomii3sem smeor
bas golisjidsdoo
sidsmoasor
+o misl to2 motetvorg
70
|d3
ak sotovitbh 10% ootiiseq
soorsupsenos
of
(v)
to tein serseb 5 gntineig
.'sorovth
.enottsgiido
seuoga a bes suas
1b
etem oF txy0es sdji 30 x9woq sciT
{gbamsD)
exsbro dow?
sbeM
od bluode
¥
os
E8 ,o92 .£L1 .qadd ,OVEL .A.2.8 392Aenotteled ot3esmol
)
.€€ ,98@ £4 qed ,28@L 12.8.8 JoA doned e'nasud 8 3 Lf «092 SES .qedd aes .0.8.8. 398 pesca, fstnomt13eM al
Sa
|
;
ee
|
-_
ts
if
+(.9.8) OSL AadeW/OL [OL] ayoxh .v myoxe 7
jail pin ote. GO)»:
|
ae
|
a1.
party,
such
notwithstanding
an
order
(vi)
The
granting
in
own
past,
of
the
particular
should
carefully,
and,
parties
decent
the
each
It has
as
an
not
the
for
circumstances
divorce,
of
order
for
secured
the
trial
judge.
of
any
case
been
specific
must
the
stated,
where
oe
case.
but
courts
governing
the
be decided that
the
on
the
cautiously
with
of public
unsecured
The
rules
however,
consistently
interests
or
ultimately
capriciously
possible,
and
petition
and
interests
morality
and
of
of
society.
the
11(1)
court
conduct
ability
the Divorce
the
in the
parties,
of each
appear
previous
of
shall,
of
circumstances would
and
be exercised far
of
to lay down
facts.
themselves
Section that
as
the
discretion
refused
the
Relief
or withholding
the
of
in
in Granting
discretion
discretion
the
dismissal
reasonable
is within
the
exercise its
appears
Discretion
maintenance have,
the
more
of
legislation,
of
namely
the husband,
(vii)
Effect
and
of Order
Maintenance
An order
Maintenance
obtained
Act
does
exercise and
them.
exhaustive
Act
Payne:
The
relevant
the
the
conduct
means
Deserted
the
have
of
declares
regard
to
other
considerations
if any,
of
specifically
discretion,
considerations
fortune,
under
1968,
thus
designated the wife,
defined in
the
the parties.
Wives'
and Children's
Act
under
not
Supra
its
condition,
a provincial
preclude
note
Deserted
maintenance
22 Julien
of
the
than
the
(Canada)
19 at 16.
as
Wives'
corollary
and
Children's
relief
in
Lie
x
|
|
i
otadw ,osz0vih yo? nottivag edd to chitin sitislahenddeedadan
rarie a '
nedove sid ab sidanonses exssqqe sob¥o SS seed oft 20 wecnesenudstY ‘fs
Lhd DARA
“)
‘oy+)
to beruose
Bie ¢
?
“ar xe
TO.
a4
ants
ire
~—
¢
tot tsbz0 ae to gatbloddsty 2 To gstiang odT
|
hapa
edteos
sAT
.egbut
Ist?
eft to notieyoetb
olitosqa yas mwob ysl ot beevtsz
asius
Ve
ed? atdtiw ek sonsnol nism te
old gatowsveg
i>. 8
,teaq eff3 nt ,evad .
no besbioeb od presents ty Jeum seao dose bos noljeroalb efi to selotexes of?
jadd
,rsvewod
bas ylevoktuss
to etasietat
593838
need
gud ylevetsitqas
to bas ytiletom
otidve
esd JI
.e3on21
zslvots1sq
awo
,sidtesoq
to eveerejor
es 182 es ,bns ,yilutetao
add bas sevisemedd
estsiseq Si3
-ytelooe
aoteineb
yilsottiosqe
od brags
evad sodto
,S8@L
,rolsexoetb efi
onsem
bentieh evi? enoliexeblenos nt betemgtesh
ens
(shemsD)
og
att io satozexe 943
jusvelst eiT
snoltisisblegos
efx to (I)
JoA sotovid
.trolitbnoo
eit
Jon beaktotexs ed biuode motjemselb
edt ditw yviametetumos
sl
bas
|}
ty)
i)
\\
beiwosenu
ff.
tasosb
aaivanl | ded
ot ,Lisde tivo. 93
,astiteq
sda
to 3oubnoo
sf3
.meda to dsoas to eeoned amma 1t>
neds evisevaixe
.otiw ofS to ,yas tf .enust0? 913 vlan
stom tssqqs
nolislatgel
bluow
a
.8oty28q ‘eda Yo toubaoo sf? bas ,boedeud ed3 to yititds
s'notbfkdd bas ‘usvlW betiesed tebav sebx0 Yo 300323 (tiv) e'moxbitdd bas ‘eeviW betteasd Istoatvorq s rebau bentasdo zabz0Ponek
ot tonien yisifotos as sansnetntem sbulosrq 30m «aa0b TOA ae
wu
a)
;
Bite
subsequent
effect trial
divorce
upon
the dissolution
court
in
application
the
for ,
reasonable
proceedings;
in
12
Act,
the
of
confer
an
duration
direct
to
such
the
consider such
and
relief
ceases
duty
have
the
adjudicate
any
appears
on Maintenance
1968
is made
pursuant
to
alimony,
alimentary
shall
of
event,
any
or
administrator
as
such
as
court
the
of
of
Orders
provides
sections
that
10 or
where
11 of
an
the
may
be,
to or
conditions
thinks
fit
and
the to
approved by the
terms,
the Divorce discretion
the
Act
upon
maintenance, court
continue
for
case
either
or
pension husband
a
trustee
court;
and
restrictions
just.
Orders
for
retirement
be paid
the
impose
orders
maintenance
that
wife,
11(1)
may
for
example,
from
(Canada) the
whether presumably
a definite
the
gainful
court
1968
would
with
respect
secured direct
period
divorced
or
wife's
employment,
and
17 D.L.R.
(2nd)
or
appear to
that
an
cease
v.
Clydesdale
[1959]
429
the
an
Pursuant
order
on
the
remarriage
such
to
unsecured.
order
23 Clydesdale
to
of
as
(Canada)
or
discretion,
husband's
it is
Act
maintenance
unfettered
a future
order
23
or
Duration
of
grant
and
the
may
(b)
Section
to
to
Restrictions
Divorce
relief
(a)
(ix)
and
the
corollary court
and
circumstances.
Section
contrary,
the marriage
;
the
the
proceedings
maintenance
Conditions
for
of
divorce
(viii)
order
on
(B.C.).
for occurrence
or
the
may
be
divorced
SLE
|
ne |
i
ae
alla
+e
sved 93 sassna soap ah ier3009, anid 20 x3ub 99 et 31 bee opptoxem of 3 yas ateolbutbhe bis xebkesos of agntbop soy, apyuvth edi?me ig nah, Sa ARS OSE
evasqds es Iskiex dove Jastg 03 bas sonansdntem
-s
L. ee
essen eiaice
j
‘
as
pin
sm
4
arg
iA Dart
aed
eye
MP,
-y
Oe
as ows Jedd eebtvory 8dCL (sbanad), 39A sorovi sfd to Sf nolsps2. 303 zabi0 ait Yo Lf xe OL emoitosa of ansvetuq sham at tetisx yzelforos
nobenag yratnamtis ,yaomiis yos tant dosrtb (s) besdend
sft of serlsie blag ad sonaas3niam 20
esajautt
2 03 To
brs
;t1uvoo
anoljoivjest
sd3 10
.sd ysm oan yd bsyormgqs acokithacs
ada en
,stiw to
ryods7Ielnaimhbea .emred
-Javt bas 32% edinidd
dows
tauoo
;
m0
eeogmt
od
|
(d)
|
as
b20 e32to sottamd od issqq8 bluow B60D (sbaned)
abs
(xt)
295A sotovid ef2 to ({1) LL nokzose | - 1
sf3 of Joegest Miiw Jwwes add soqu aolzenseth baseaebair ns 1stm09 jnavetsd
.botw.9enu
te berpose Tedtedw jsonanstmbem Yo? sebro’ 2° noksssub
tot 1eb49 as ied? Joeatbh yldamvesnq yaw Saves saa ,noljexzoelb dove o3 somsTIuo.o
Sf7 mo suns.
19 bolrsq siiatieb = vot ountinoo Ifate sonsnsioism—
ovib edt 20 sgstriausr a'sttw beoxrevth ef} ,eiqmaxe rol ,Jaove s7y2u2 6 to ad ato
aided Syus bas ,inomyolgie fetatsg mor? mnsusttiex a!basdaut
~
US
qualified
by leave
period
the
made
or
subject
pursuant
to
change
of
before
the
for
the
occurrence to
the
event.
limitations
Section
11(2)
of
to
period
in
or
all
either
It
doubt
Act
party
(Canada) or
but in
the
expiration
this
or
of
the
order
rescinded
if of
appear
context
for
an
1968
rescission
it would
to apply
that
be modified
variation
event,
on
is probable
could
Divorce
warranted
eliminate
a power
the
order
a material the
order
desirable
by expressly
variation
or
discharge
of
order.
would
The
Usual
has
usually
the
income
rule
have
ebncidess” specific
a long-established
be awarded
is very
parties
Amount
been
husband's
one-third
net
has
only
that
fixed
arithmetical
Some hol L933
Deo Meta
and
is
there
has
of
as
rule
means,
Supra
ae CY Note
19 at
and
operate
26 Payne:
application
25.
or
that
where
of
the
one-third the
so-called
husband's
to
apply
where
Julien
Payne
accordingly
the wife
income
maintenance
representing
difficult
whereby
ec: MW. Bae o.
xv. X 1933702. WiweR. Julien
rigid
Professor
husband's
cannot
amount
whereby
inappropriate
meaneree
independent formula
the
exceedingly
is no the
practice
in an
but
regarded
limited
proportion
the wife
to a wife
been
large
where
25
a further
above
designated
There
24
of
for
the
court
(x)
of
apply
circumstances
reserving the
to
of the
is
entitled
their
joint
rigid
consistently
the
to any income,
application
with
the
of
a
discretion
4
piace
ot
> st
‘
#8 b1uoo Sianeli 03 :
:
nabr0 ab tad ‘eldsdory et 37
babatowed'Een
evae!
ot
pony:
Intiatom & 22 BaeT (abans)) 494 asscoedt oii MORO ED ESE marten xsb10 9ef2 to caleuisuds to sobtalisv bosneeay soanatemustt> Yo Sghnds nf = sldatiesb wseqge bivow 31 tud ,3neve xo: boks9q |bosaagtesb ‘03 o109d ylsasigxe to syprsdostbh
m
atfy oi tduob Ils eisnimtle of azu02 egy 203
¥d txetnoo
vy %
Gokisizny to? yiggs o23 yIx18q todas or Lge fg gaivises “ * .
sisbr0 93 oe
Jeyoms Isuel eT
(x)
soracedotem ydoredw sottostq bedelidstes-gnol s#ased ead oxsdT buidi-soo
gotinsesuqey snboms ms nk siiw se o3 bebrsws sd ywiieueu bluow sfx to to néltssasifgqe brgix sda Jud $5 secant jen e'bredeui
odd
bsilsc-ca
a'bosdaud sii otsdw siatiqotqyant es bebusger need esr alux brtdsi~sno sid oxsdw yiqgs of tfiuctittb ylgnkbssoxe ei bus Sgial ytev et amooat yleatbroo2s
syst
roees tort
askiui
OS scsen batimis yloo svsd asrlz1sq
ys of beltians et sttw ada yderedw ofux on el oxed3 Jad smoot
jnioft xted2
® to oolisstigge
to 10 smoont e'basdeud oft Yo sotszoqgo3q, pidtoege
bigt: ed3 Jans has ,ansom sinabosqebal
aotjetoath afi dsiw ylinstatsmos sistegqo aan
8
oh iy
°° eebuLonoo
oe
ear ottw ads azede
Leotiomii tasae
eae senna
saab anteela et eet| ad
2
:
9
COL
+)
te
28 ge OE
aa
a
r
314.
conferred
by
(xi)
or
sum
similar
for
rules
The the
provide
not
husband
became
of
Section
it where power
Act
made
court 11(2)
of
of
court pursuant
the
"11
or
in part.
the
amount
those
of his
to vary to
Act
or
however,
of
the
of
of maintenance but
(Canada)
1968,
also
respect
Divorce
provincial
by
statutes
with
or under
rescind
Section
appear Act
An order
them." Effect
same
wife to
and
statutes
to
11(1)
confer
(Canada)
made
corollary of
or
pursuant
regulate
orders
the Act,
a wide 1968
which
are
for visions
discretion ‘provides
to
this
as
Remarriage
on
the
follows:
section
may be varied from time to time or rescinded by the court that made the order if it thinks fit and just to do so having regard to the conduct of the parties since the making of the order or any change in the condition, means or other circumstances of either of
(xii)
The
such
payments,
32
monthly
jurisdictions
the
Section
the
l,
discharge,
provinces
conferred,
1857,
pay
to
or
Canadian
to make
under
Divorce
Divorce
(2).
was
wife,
decreasing
increased
made
his
to
Section
thereto. the
and would
for
1866,
unable
In some
unable
(England)
relating
the
only
Order
in whole
court.
means
maintenance
Causes
of
his
of
of
several
1968.
(England)
became
order
in
of variation
provisions
maintenance
the
court the
rules
Act
maintenance
or
court
powers
rules
were
(Canada)
Maintenance
husband
statutes
secure
of
the
conferred
No
Matrimonial
for
powers
where
to
ordered
of
Act
Causes
the
suspend
of
decreased.
court,
temporarily
increasing
orders
Recission
where
or
ordered
Divorce
the
weekly
rules
and
the
and Matrimonial
provincial
or
of
Divorce
authorized
modify,
11
Variation
The
or
Section
or
court.
ght,
.
oft |” teM bas sexovid (babfd) 398 esgund Tathomis Lt dotsse® ,QA8E atedw ,21y0> arf? bostrorgus ondud vidsaom ods yaq09 oldenu smsood bradé Sarbtioalb 02 .sitw etd to sonsmstoies ‘ost ‘x0? barsbto me ylassw to omse sat .gyeq nt xo slodw at rebro sid basqeve yitratogme2 ‘xo viibom
yd enolsotbelxut msthaned Isvevee nt berretnos e1ew stewog rsltmte 16 .dxu0D to esl
asdused2@ love eaontvertq smoke nI to jovome
onenssaisea
coals gud
sri
,etaowvag
gategsioeb toi
ylso
398qe67
diiw
bas sotovkd
to sstuvate
,18vewed
odd
don sbiyo1q
t1wo2
to aolux x0
saz salem 03 sldany susced boadend 913 s1edw barsb1o
siiw eld to esodt 10 boasstont o2
10 eetviede Istontvorq
,berrsinco
to SE wolsas2
Intonivoysq
tsbqu
to
ansem ald stew 3t gatesotont rot
esw coljetisv
ito ue
ov
1tsbay sbam soanmetnism 519292
,v28l
(haalgnd)
JoA eseued
- bsessia8b
03- ain
{sinomtzisM
,otsited2 gatisiox jx1yoo to eslut siaivge:
doliw
,83@L (sbaned)
2oA sot0vid sd to enoketvorg oft
10% exebro yialloyvoo bakoasat xo yasv 02% Jxwos siz 20 erswoq sdJ
zo asetetv sis
,29A sda Yo (L)IL moksos2 02 Jasversg sbam sonsnesotsa
.Iavo> of go notsesseib sbiw es 193009 oF Iseqgs bivow bas J1u02,1¢ aeluz tewollel es asbivetg
8ael (sbaned) toA sovovid ed’ to (S)IL potsose
oes
There Act
is no
(Canada)
express
1968
that
the
order
setgn ee and
such
decisive
a determination
Bhim Sere
right
to
in whose
to his
or
for
her
shall
of
must
of
the be
the
vary
11(2)
or
rescind
subsequent
regarded
right
of
the Divorce
a corollary
remarriage
only
as
of
relevant
to variation
or
either and
not
recission
of
of Death enforce
favor
the
personal
1968,
unsecured
recipient.
be
remarriage
Bifect
spouse
(Canada)
event
in Section
ee
Gath). The
the
court
maintenance
to
in
requirement
Section
an
order
order
for
has
maintenance
been
representatives.
11(1),
maintenance
for
If
an
order
enforceable
on
a continuing
the
court
any
term
is made
for
and
may not
personal
does
By virtue
such
basis
made
is
of
not
a term,
against
the
the
pass
make the
life
order
estate
an
of
death
Act
order of
will
the
the
on
the Divorce
presumably exceeding
to
the apparently
deceased
spouses.
2:7. Compare Matrimonial Causes Act, R.S.O. 1960, Ch. 232, Sec. 2(1) (c) which provided that payments made under an order for unsecured maintenance by way of monthly or weekly sums ‘shall cease on the wife marrying again'. Compare also Domestic Relation Act R.S.A. 1970, Sec. -26(1) and>Queents) BenchvAct).2.S.S. 1965. Ch. 73), Sec. 37(1), whereby the misconduct or the remarriage of the wife was expressly declared a ground on which a maintenance order might be varied, modified or temporarily suspended. For recommendation that the remarriage of the wife should automatically extinguish her right to claim or receive maintenance from her former husband, see Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage & Divorce (England) 1951-55; Working Paper No. 9: Matrimonial and Related Proceedings
Financial
Relief
(April
1967),
paras.
28 Julien
Payne
29 EDLGie
ste
ok.
-
Supra
Note
19 at
27.
40 and
69.
-
sotovid old Fo (S)1 edi ias ak anontrxhupen «
stows bones so ony Le ana aa SK tad) 288
wadits to
i
lcd
tnoupsedua mute to 3neve leppard
ak whee pomee ines Sy
jeaee
434
:
7
ton brs saavaton as yino wetehogrit od qa vith aren dove brs ‘i, | ;
to soteelost
ee
.
,
ek
i
:
tw
xo solssiasv of site's os ss nolsantmoaab bsot svteatosb ‘7
VRee
7
“ve
.19bio of Febs
’
;
ne o7re
+ MBL AO. ga0988 .O.tkx); ed3 of Lamoarsq iiteob
go
94
eezq
Jom
sovovid
yobyo of3
st somanesteiam esob
sia
roi x+sb10 ns sototns
bas shem nosed esr
lo sutxviv yd
sabro
gitnaxsqqe bseagosb
[ilw ofg
mbito
off
to sistas
jon ated
,anat oft
tovst saodw at seuoge
.eavitstases1qess Lenozysq
oa sdsm yidsemwesrq vem vines ed to siti edd guibseoxs
sd?
02 tigiy sAT
« dove
tentegen
. (DIL motios2
yas 102 sonsnegntsm
ted to etd 03
,8d0L (sbsmed) bervosen
102 ebsm at sebyo os 21 etesd gatuntsaos
so2
!
.anakqrost
s no eldssenroins e¢
sd
-2o92voqgea
$ (5)(L)8
.o9@
,SES
.dD 0082
.0,.8.09 .39A ageund
IsinomizsaM
ee
bezusssav 102 yebzo me webav obew ajaseveq isd3 bebivorg dotdw eq) mo sene9 Ilade’ eowe videsw to yintnom Yo yew yd sonsos3otem -A.2.8
290A notssleA
«EN
.8D
COOL
stzeemod .2.8.0,
gels sinqmoD
ISA dSaee onsen
.'akegs
i awl
-
gnivisem 9
bas (E88§ ,982 a)
ehiw af2 io sasixxsmsx 93 to Jovbnoovelm oda ydexeiw .(L)VE .992 . tdgia x9b10 sonsueininm s dotdw ao bavotg 8 bexelosb yleserqxs esw aotiebnomuoos1 rot .bsbroqave vyitasszoqmss tro balitbom ,betzsv sd detusnisus yiisottameius bluode siiw ef3 lo Sgataismo1 odd 3ad3 ,buedeu! t9@701 red mort sonenstnism evisgat vo miaLo o3 Idgia 19d
(bag ign) sovovid 3 egstayeM mo noleetmmo) Leyos oft 2o tx0qeH ase ~ egntbseoorT betels bas islaomtz3aM 3:@ .of rege gntdxoW ;22-1[2el +08 bas 0A vesisq «(S001 LhagA)) IotfeA Letonankt )
‘a
yg
&)
‘1
XS 48 OL sto wxque -> snyed sobtet
5
Biba
(xiv)
Settlement
Section 1857
45 of
authorized
the
ground
any
property
settled
of
for
of
but
of
to
whether
of the
and
Matrimonial
a divorce
adultery,
have
been
innocent
corresponding
of
the
in
may
or
the or
to
or
reversion,
part
several
Canadian
power
to
or
any
of
of
identical
provinces
order
for or
on
be
and of the children
though not
issue
(England)
a husband
whole
only be exercised
their
Act
Similar
discretionary
property
the marriage
that
party
Causes
granted
in possession
enacted
of
was
order
or any of them".
of the wife's
object
pecuniary court
damage
will
husband,
as
Act
a
"the benefit
either
of
= The
had
Property
where
wife,
either
the
children
fen
wife's
the
or
in Ontario
the
court,
provisions
settlement
Divorce
"the benefit
the marriage, statutory
the
the his
of Wife's
not
have
caused
and
up.
a punishment
of
to
the
The the
statutory
by the wife's
regard
the wife broken
above
the
wife
matrimonial
probable
children
power
provision
of
would
the
and/or
pecuniary
of
have
court the
is
to make
the
and
the
misconduct position
enjoyed
is not
good
which
if
the marriage
intended
co-respondent
the
to be used
through
the
wife.
30 Domestic Relations Act R.S.A. 1970 Ch. 113 Section Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act R.S.B.C. 1960,
Queen's
Bench
Act
R.S.S.
1965
Ch...
/3,
Sécs,
22 Ch.
118,
35.
ow MatramonialaGauses:
Act.oR.S\089
19605.
Ch.
,2326.Section
3.
Sec.
34.
OLE
(baalgat)dy Gee kinniebhin ie Se salted Sisiassaa = 0 ‘headed Pie) beinarg asw sotovth 6 stedw ,3m09 edt Bostsoitgon (280 Yo 348q Yo Slodw oy tad% rebrO of ,yrsILubs a*eliw etd to “beeches od .nokerove1 ro solteesseog nl teftedw .sitw 9f3 to qI7sqorq Ye
to aeablisds ed3 lo bas y2teq taso0nnt af3 Yo 3ktemsd edd" 102 bslsise weltmt2
toa dguodt
fsokjoebt
& yobyo of rowoq efo"
3itensd
soi
byetorexs
gatbnoqas1z09
yusnokseroath od —_
Jo YRB To sueet
to sedtts
sved enolalvotq yiojusase
L[exsvse at batosne med
nskbans)
OF jsoakvorg
."“medd to ys 70 tedjis yo ,sgetrzam silt
yem YIxsqo1q
riedd
ef3 otrs3a0 ot jud
e'sttw sili io tnomelt3se
ro sgetriad 343
Yo ne tbltdo.
to
edt
fe “gots
slam 6%
bong
et
bas tovbnozelm Istnomitsem solileoq
ads dstdw efi
Sastatsm
3t bsvotne
bsew ad o3 bshustat sits danands
yratnuvesq aved
ais
svods
yr030Ie3e
a! notelvorq
ait
io Jos[do sdT+))>
a'sitw efa yd. beeuss ogamsbh yisinvosq sldedozq
sit oF bisges
motbl tio add
blvow
gom at s1w0eo sai
ever
ILiw)day05 . baadaud
bas sttw sd3
.yu asdord jon bad
to rewoq off
seabonrnabinn’ esi2 to zo\bos stiw sdt to 3memdeinug & 2s |
1. esitiw
’
S$ motiee CLL .A0 OTOL Ace tod enottslo# otsesm@od .998 ,BIL .dD ,OOCL
bE
-C2
1
.9.8.2.9 204 aosued [efnomisse «098ning -f3, 22k
if
1
oo sg) Aoasd shone 7
4
bea stevia a
J
E nobios® .S€S oo .U8er 0,219 4)
>i
ip
(b)
soaaiigans-son dgvowd? molsrseebyo ,81s9y, -nokiu3izaez
to ssiseb s diiw
gibal ob notissage? Istotbet 10% gbawox) (14) Isfotbut Yo abavorwg oft .de@L ,doA sgsixeM Istoeq@ sd3 tobal $oA
ubniH
sgsizyeM
oft
xsbaw
.Isokinebl
tuS
s1—
sarx0ovib
bne noljs16q92
:enmeasy gaiwollot odd rot siazeqse ois yads eee -aseuslo gntwolio? ods bes elds gnutreblesos al..... sd? trvosos o3nt meds2 saved sstitomod tniol at oft vd betqebs omador sit bas boyolqms sgsugnst tad3 dost eda lo ,zesvewod ,woiv ol =.soometlast tntol edd .ymseylog besingoss1 182 os ead wed obotil amatdorq sd3 o% dogoxqqs oft tedt elset 933 teumod
jon bSen
sotovth
bas soliatsqse
[stotbut
to
jed? bre eseao sda d3iod nk ompe oft od yilrsaeeosn yaoesig edz nt s{dssteeh tom yisaesosm teddsiem er It ebouotg bss sokiarsqee Istoibs{ 107 ebmuvorg tsdd caso
Istoog2 oft nt as isotseabk sd bluods sotovkb 102 .b20f ,394 ogetrieM edt of biasst gotvad .revosToM ayswie ead yainuwme) ubarH oxi3 dotde eissbt datd bra Yese sham od ton bluode ada sbivesgq of 23 bomsti
.Je9omtenths Isutom wo Betitnusroqqs mumtxam
aiT
-dasyottth edd tetis
sotovib ,o3 qu bevtt on od bluode wel od3
yltigtfe ezotereds
ro sioted
besiemsloe
ef Ifta atds
wedisdw
std to stom Yo smo yas moO mokziseq
.sgsizysm
_
ar
to smeroe
8 oF Y318q sort bo
» .
yd coltsiudgsa tehotbut jisse Pity 198
tabsavorg gatwetiot a’ $8
to .saD vi io .d@OL .vo da2S botsb .993atmmod tatot sd3 56 d1oqed 992
[email protected] betsh IT sae% ,extxd ,stbal
¥
wba of" ane sgstyxeM LODE 4s (2201) "394
mia!
i dae
P
Pa
(1)
Desertion
by the respondent
period
two
the
of
presentation
(2)
Cruelty
(3)
The other
the
Marriage
Act,
1955,
Maintenance
and
Act,
provided
obtains
form,
not
other
judicial
for
separation
desertion
is
year,
wife
the
1954,
Maintenance
less
Act.
can
leprosy
has
not
preceding
been
from a less
the
than
presentation
from
has
for
party had
his
to
claim
been
two
has
sexual
than
or
her
maintenance, on
the
same
than
two
years
It
the
does
ground.
or
of
solemnization
Hindu
two
Where,
of
under
that her
leprosy
Hindu
Hindu
are
separate
if a wife right
the
is
the and
reliefs
however,
the
10).
under
forfeit
of
person
Adoption
therefore, not
any
(Section
The
duration
maintenance
with
separation
seems,
she
the
spouse.
grounds.
Acts.
petitioner.
intercourse
judicial
same
the
three
a communicable
continuously
after
on
the
in
for
years;
under
claim
suffering
contracted
maintenance
only
for
disease
party
other
entitled or
suffering
venereal
mind
by different
a decree
party
from
marriage
is
of the respondent.
petition;
other
other
of
preceding
petition;
party has been
years
The
wife
the part
immediately
year
unsound
The
the
one
The
(6)
of
form
The
(5)
on
a continuous
immediately
virulent
of
(4)
years
for
to
claim
period
less
of
than
Adoption
one
and
1954,°°
63 Section 18(2).See also S.P. Khetarpal "Codification of Hindu Law" "Family Law and Customary Law in Asia'’ (Hague) (1968) at 225.
in
evse
diet
auounhios # x02 Iupbroqess ofa ydmolsrweet (1) quibesssq ylotetbema? ezasy owl Joboktsq sd jaotjiseq edi Yo aokzsInsestq (8)
-$aebooqes? oda to Juaq 93 no YaIsu70
g mo7? gntxolive mosd and ytisg teilt0 oT . (E) ted? eeof nolininsestq
to mrot
gasivriv
visisibsmnt
tasy 9n0
vot yeorgsl
jon
aif) gatbsos1g
rnotjitisq 33 to
4idsotnugno>
s at sessatb
.wsn0itkseq
oft mozt
sa1key
vos ditw servoosint
neexsq
.(OL mottos2)
ebatH
sta
ows
ofT
stihw s it senda .exsletedd miels
oF Jdgtx
sod
to bolireq sd3
thetrot
mort
axssy
jon
arto
(2)
ows
brig
tol
ead Yrxeq
bavoeny
(0)
ssd30 sAT
bed sgsitzem
Isvxoe
asifd
rerito
letotbyt mkalp o2 boljtaae
gotsqobA ubalH ed3 stelisx
betoarimo>
tar to ata
-sevogqe
edt sebaw nokaex8q98 brs
stkieqee
wets
of3
I[sersnev
assed aad yiiaq seeds eit
to viewountaaco
io roftastometoe
@)
sood sad y21teq xedjo sdT
sot gaizetive
ssid?
ome
.2bnyotg
.emos
ada
,dceL
mo
-soasnsinism
«6. brvoig
,30A eonansSateM
ome
bas tai sealubotH oda xebae sparse
bas
tot esi9sb 5 anteido
ods no aolisreqoe
sno madd ea0f et yeorqsl to aotisiub ro atesy ow? adi
Istotbut
eeol al aoksieesb
minis yimo aso otiw odd .189y ©
jw
, 329A sgetrieM
«edoA doemstiib yd bebivozq
31
tom es0b ode
, tevewod .o7esdW
10 cel
somsnsinism
isbay
et sttw sonT
i
a: . seer ery 5tey
~ayees
, 80067
6a
figs Aukvatesot(S80Hott
326.
(ti):*
The
Decree
A plaintiff the
claim
latter
be
}
F
intention
in an
changed
remedy
is
separation
unlike
pronounced
and
The
and
the
change
insist
cohabitation
the
on
earlier
neither
;
against
separation
her
order,
In Alberta,
wife
in the
be
with
a decree
separation
devolves
as
liberty
remarry
and
as
an
has
dying
but
for
independent
that the
is no
y A
of
2
judicial
immediately
been
person.
that
this
of
was
long
it
as
are
change
is
is
the
The
the
the
deadee
is
The wife
during
in force
REL
modern
more
the
te y
extensive.
of
is
with
judicial
property
wife
of
intercourse
Neither
the
to
effect
of
continuance
purposes
the
The
entitled
order
has
much
in
altered.
a principal
66
during
was
are
who
rape.
which
any
neither
pronounced
husband other
effect
a husband
intestate
all
that
there
decree
rights
So
guilty
results
has
if her
is
thoro'.
be
and
effect
not
their
and
;
may
application
provided
The
takes
but
;
will
64
does
other
et
an
©
and
of her
juris
F
rights
the
make
absolute
motive.
in desertion
event
to
parties,
however,
if
decree
separation
parties'
may
separation
of divorce
'a mensa
can
:
wife
the
divorce
spouse
;
his
in
the
absolute.
the
principle
divorce
collateral
decree
of
for
of judicial
of judicial
status
Effects
before
is a decree
decree
matrimonial
one
sought
improper
tts
action
to
;
or
and
the
of her them
is
reckoned
at
sui
continuance
of
64
David one
to
v.
David
choose
(1953) the
4 D.L.R.
relief
for a decree of divorce (per Davey, J.).
to
be
470
(B.C.);
granted.
and....has
no
'"'The aggrieved
A guilty
say
in the
party
choice
v.
Gustafson
(1935)
2 W.W.R.
286
at
384
of
decree."
(Sask.).
66 R. 7
The
v.
Clarke
Domestic
(1949)
2 All
Relation
Act.
E.R.
448.
K.S.A.
1970,
Chap.
113,
Sec.
is the
move
65 Gustafson
party
cannot
12.
the
eat bas epxget edt (het)
A
ogee
ms at tilimstalg A isi3 nokisollqqn me one yam o>tovib x02 nottos as
odd ted% babiverq notisseqse IstotbutYosmo 03 begmars od miss ont
Istotbuft at
satosb
at ereiia bos stuloeds
om
noljsisqse
to 591995 ed3 eatinu
sotovkb
aeles
sostte
tt yviststhoumt
bre reqozqmt 10 nokinstnt
Isteislios
*® svitom
30 esxosb sAT
rs33sl
ola ex0ted ieu0e at yboms1
ca -sjuloads sstosb 6 et bis beonvono1q nt egasdo
a3
.beyveiis
ai? o3
bats?
goto?
fsloltby{t
arsbom
_svtanstxe
srom
doum evs
sd3
to asidttsll
to yiitue
dotdw
\9
esd setzeb
antiaub ete2zes3at paieb gew
,zeveword
asd
basdeud
sed
rod
HM an
edi
xzsdjten
sevoqe
eld
stiw
,rsb1ro nolijsisqee
& tt
antyb
telent
zotiiss
tentsgs
red
sd yam Iitw
eadives: mood
sp" sorovth
mk ed asd
8 bas notinezsb
beonuonotq
sd3
yond to sonmauatinon a8 ef moda
iii
OO
siiT
Io yixeqorq
add
baedeud
esd odw
no
ditw nolisitdsdos
39 semem
.‘orodt
sIqtoatiq
ot sgmado
di
‘esttxsq
reiljo sit
Sos
es gitol of
ot af asb1o of
diviw sexuootetmt
et eddgiy
aids
= saw
Isqtoaixq
tostio
Yo
jsf3
ak tadjtem
to meade Istnomtx3sm
93
gud ,estsxsq
tisdit
edtgty
exs
sriT
to as1osb
Istotbuf
as0b sokjsysqes
ton
tostto
yrs
,sirediA
to 3asvo
edi
esvioveb
al at stiw
nokiszsqse
tug bonodosr et ottw ofd eseoqzv¢ tad3o [is 102 Jud yrxsme1 03 Xaxedtt to sonmauntiaos
sit
antyub atiw sil
Jaebnoqobni
as es bas ataut
40
;
old at ystnq Kovetzgge odT" evom
.coe1sq
tonmnss
yvyiseq yiltug A
",ee19eb sd? fo,sohodo .
—,
7 (.9.d) OV) Wald } (O20L) bived .v bivad .bestneta
eit seoods
sd oF iotisz
”
03 9m0
od3 at yee on as....bme so10vib 20 ssio9b 6 10? mS L ,yeved 19q) j é
nay
3A 2a
Cates?) S8£ te O88 .2.W.W S (2001) moeteteud—_.v poeistew) 0 ; 88d 1.9 ELAS (es@r) exaslD iv H on we Ae Re ria, Sate oS Wadd obieomod oft sotislas SI soee ,€11 sqastd
JP
fay
~OOf .D.A LT (SOL) oy
FT uu)
168
. rf Lal
(0961)
a
ble
oe
Se
9 jeple
o pen Ala, gp
BBA .D.A (O8UL)
oe Rete + GOD Aiea ay : os
:
aia eet aa
330).
decree
of
different was
not
judicial
from
that
entitled
husband's
separation
to
person
can
a new
acquire
In addition
orders
which are
sue
domicile.
independent
divorce
of her
a decree
in Alberta,
after
judicial
domicile
the
have
not
husband's
for
But
did
from
court
has
power
been
Interim
order
a wife
domicile
and
in a court
the wife
separation
that
already
enable
of
her
to
acquire
that
other
consequently than
is regarded for
all
a domicile
that
as
of
purposes
and
to make
the wife (ii)
(iii)
Permanent
If
the
the with
(iv)
pendente alimony
petitioner
husband his
Custody,
the
ancillary
However
payment
orders
the
as
outline
in
of such
of alimony
to
ipbeale: 2 for
the wife.
is a husband,
against
the
74 damages
adulterer
for
for
adultery
wifes”
maintenance
and
education
of
the
aueubera ree
(v)
Settlement
of wife's
aimee
(iS) The, Domestics Relations Act RsS.A.., 970, uChap. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Section 24.
213),
Sec.
17 U1)
74 The The
Domestic Relations Act R.S.A. 1970, Chap. Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Section 25.
113,
Sec.
18(1).
The
Domestic
Chap.
E13,
See.
14.
the Domestic Relations Act R:SvA. 19/70, Chap, The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Section 26.
213,
Sec.
44.
The The
113,
Sec.
22.
Jes Relations Act RS As 1970,
thus
husband.
discussed.
for
the
an
produced:
(i)
she
76
ia Domestic Relations Act R.S.A. 1970, Chap. Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Section 27.
zed Yo sadd mot? ImsrsTItb oda visneupsedon Ysilt bas eftotmob a*basdeud edd Yo 3sd9 aédd yedt0 ovo. » mr set09b s 102 bua oF belatins jon esw
mt Yue eltotmob e”bnadaun te es bobyegey at ottw ond’ \xatedLA auri2 bas aesoquily Fis 102 noktstaqes Istobbyt te%Is noaxeq Insbmeqebat
tasdevt ted to Sedo mor? sltotmob wen 8 ettupse ned vrellions
ai es atebyo
tioveeo actlivo
oft x0% asbro mtxrstnt
oe daseysq
|
BV sea rk siiebasq
grsilubs
,bredend
rot 19t93lubs
s ef waolstigeq sds 2 sd3
basdeud
tenisge
(1)
sitw sds
ON ody sit 102 yoomtls tnsnsarxet 702 asgemb
at
sbeouborq sis sisbi10
| od ynomiia
odd notttbbs
.beaapoethb n99d ybasile sven dolidw poaeeee
tevewol
af
esd J10s
siem oJ tewog
(EI) :
(ttt)
ons
oN otiw old dttw oii
%6 sotszsoubs
bas sonsnotntam OT
WN e3x9q0%q
a
a'sitw
,.yboveud nex
(vi)
tis
to tasmolt3se
(v)
ener
(E)UL .282 .£L0 .qudd ,OT@L OS
,.A.2.|
mobtse2
;
o
329A enokialed otseemod oft ~
,c20L toA sgsirzsM obntH sAT
ay .(21)8L
.992 , fff
mPa
.qedd ,OVeL .A.2.8 JoA enotsafor oitesmod siT
28 mokize2 ,2@@f toA sgstaisM wbath edT
bi: Aged Manel
|
pr
EX
A
ae
tesmod oT le® (pAE .09@ CLL .qelD ,OVGL’ yA, 2.394 eroksaot AS ,o02 , E11 .qadd ,OVEL .A.2.1 J9Aemobselex Stseemod oT
.88 moktoeg ,2@@l 3A egetziaM whale ofT bi) Doh ORE eS te geese
+S8 +992 ,€11 .qsdd lat Sore
“4
slic pence
sM oT ubatH WS moftoe2 ,@2@f tA ogstxz y ras |
}
|ot
.
a - Ter \ 5
4
331.
(vi)
An injunction may be granted any
apprehended
defendant
(iv) In
Discharge
India,
put
an
end
the
decree
Resumption but
no
the
to
of
such
provision
There
party
are
hardly
to
brought
held
judicial
apply
that
decree
not
be
the
of
separation.
subsist
will
for
it
the
until
normally
court
will
property.
it
is
the
court.
is
Under
resumption Under
from
the
of
of
of
Hindu
two
eae
the
of divorce
such
Act
It
seems
to
the
the
for
by reason
rescission
under
Domestic
Relations Act
R.S.A.
1970,
note
at 193.
Chap.
79 Bromley,
'Family
Law''
supra
80 Hindu
Marriage
Act
1955,
Section
13(1) (iii).
113;
of
not
the
passing
the
the
Sec.
can
resumed
a person
or
are
it has
decree
that
by
is
1869,
of shall
court
petitioner
78 The
it
has
divorce,
is
be made
petitioner
Canada
only
court.
cohabitation.
Act,
after in
the
a decree
respondent
upwards
resumption
There
resume
annuls
or
a petition
such
has
Divorce
Marriage
if
years
presenting
Indian
by
petitions
whether
cohabitation
divorce
en
a decree
the
of
application
and
doubtful
such
necessary.
in England
It
decree
Despite
be a ground
an
automatically
is rescinded
discharge
seems
not
provisions
judicial
pronouncing
cohabitation
parties
a space
prevented
personal
the
a decree
for
or
by the
if
the
obtain
the
to
discharge
separation.
and
real
judicial
in Alberta;
to
his
of
qiecheeceda
cohabitation
from
to
similar
automatically been
for
cohabitation
application
either
resumption
continue
an
disposition
of Decree
a decree
will
of
to prevent
20.
fee
eA
sd3 vd nottieoqatb bsbasdezqqs yas
Poacer st Isnoe1eq ro [eax ald Jo Jnsbasisb 06@
@
Jowell
ee
Gy
4
taut
eee+)
BAL
ed
ave
eae
Se
sey
«
vet)
maeomes
agereens te. geal
Moe SD
law
richin |»
(tv)
tak
betoarg sd yam ooks
en
l | vlisotzamoius ton Litw soltsiidssdeo 30 nokiqmess ods .stbaal .notsetsqse Ietotbut 302 sampsb.s 03 bas as Jug
noligqmuass ove sitqes
-imsod oflt yd bebrtpags at tt [hany Istedye 03 suatsqoo Iiitw ssiseb sA3 dotertoee:
to bevorg
dove
sol
el sgimiverb
.viseesoen
at exell
5 sd yifentvon
Litw rotyeitderoo io soliqnmuesa
afi
Ixv09
as 3ud
of nolisotiqqs
vd obsm od of asd nofgaptiggs as emeae Ji yeiitodiA nt notelvorq dove on .notisiidsdes
smueet
3} .@88L
esd
,39A soxvovid
to setosb eo
tom
Yo gnteasq Ifsde
643 elunns ara
terolitieg
bamvesi
noaieq
amy0o
sit
sontedw
a dowe
et ssioeb
at amsse rot
uboik
yobnU
od3
to sstosb 8 atsaido
5 gatiasessq
Istotbut
bas yiqqs
& 10? motjaitdesoo to se19eb
06 or jntsqee Islotbut
solitieq
nased
bisd
.nottsaisqse
10 B78>y, se to sosqe II
yibusd
ehinotsaucsun
Jad3
odd
to moiaqmuess
sis sredT
93 trguoid
.31u09
ON pegzedoekb
afi tr sstovib
ebiswqy
10 ~sotovib
at JI
webs
nolisatidadon
t9A sgaizaaM
toTis
6 shane)
adj
ootbnl
asd tasbnogest of3
Lutaduob
ssdste
od ytisq
xsitmte
bas basigad at anoletvorq
anotstteq ef
s1s 3f ysbsu
agisdsetb
913
14 sex9eb
oft
astgtaq
moxt
sds
sesuakien we jon
mo7t aenobtiieq 244 tsdd vino Rosso: yd edtovth to ssxosb 5 gntonvonord Le
»
pat
Tr
Wi
(Of .ae2 ,£LL .qedd ,OUCE -As2. 39h enohtele® of3a9m00 oft -€@f 38 ston pone yp. lime"
i }
\
;
pe
4
:
OS eu
.volmord Y 08
}
-(trtv) (DEb mokiose 220i Joh egetzxelt vbakH at ine
pe
aieligiae
f2eu
. oT
AGY
pRAVe
6
@isatee
SQ4GRVSY
Fi
sty
AG q aiff ine}
i
B32
has
been
granted
proved
in
Canada
the
support
breakdown upwards
under
respondent
(v)
of
the
petitioner
since
In
a judicial
the
has
if
of
resumed
action
for
a decree
and
India
the
the
plaintiff
(a)
in
of (b)
any
the
(c)
Morton
to
other the
the
during
or
a period
the
that
the
not
ground
or
of
though
seems
that
in
for marriage
of
three
separation
connived
party,
separation
at
years if
or
the
of
judicial
the
is
been
adultery
or
matrimonial
the
as
prosecuted
offence
complained
that
an
has
the
in
of
the marriage
not
been
condoned.
, considered
that
area: judicial
alternative
petitioner
Breakdown,
Paras.
claim
should
303,
remedy
have
Chapter
313.
collusion
or
existence
82 (1956),
a decree
adultery,
81 Marriage
grant
judicial
respondent,
pm Commission
in England
9678
divorce
of judicial
will
where
the
Presented
be retained
Cmd:s
also
as
has
on
adultery
under
It
facts
OF
with (d)
court
case
condoned
of.
See
same
cohabitation.
accessory
opinion
an
the
divorce.
4(1) Ce) (482 after
sought
The
for
upon
and Defences
Canada
separation
bring
passing
not
Bars
petition
can
Section
separation
VI
the
committed
; separation
to divorce
and
discretionary
should
was power
of to
.
ey
:
-
‘e
he |
=
see
&
ol
lmcreey
0¢
te
Ce
Tm
Wai,
:
arith in
.
dadotbot » besneng ood aa annoioogunolteneqn ‘> ‘oa helrie tae Fate
Aguads, am:
at snildsow ont21 ‘
is '
.soxovib solsalsiieg aftJossoqque at bavoxq
yi
te
s
eo Mth Deh
sgstizem 02 estovib 102 motsos ap gattd ms. x9n0tstieq sf3 sbsasd
sbmu awobleord (i)a to etsey send to boiteq s 19378 £8 01) (9)ots5s2 s to gmbeesq 543 sonmke ebrewqu ati }k moltanteqse [etotbut to setleb ,wotisiidsdos
bemasy ton ead tosbmoqest
stoneiad bosaise (v) Istothut
Jon Iitw S109 ‘ad stbal bas Renan.) al
5 jnetg
to setasb
esr dazsntald oda
al solistaqee nsed
[etotbut sredw sess yna ai (s)
,yteiiubs
yraitubs
si
in
to baverg
taeage 10
bsatelqmos
somstto
sd>
ao
Idguoe
10 02 YI02899595
.¥31eq
Istnomly3em
i530
sit
at mtafo
sia
,insbnogest
sgsirrem sft to sometetxe
bsitimmoo
(d)
,io
(>)
to beinsestt
betuogeorq To
io
oft bsnobnos To
goleulion
it notsexeqse
edz
djziw
(b)
edd gakiwb
"
-bsnobnon masd ton esd jada yrsiiube biuora
solisxaqes
Istotbut tjad3 betsbienoo
jo Baw bas sotovib of ybeme1 svitsmisiis od yawog YERHOLtexletb us
edt sved
blyode
58 ootaatemod sot10M sdT.
os es basigod at benisis1 od
tacoktsizeq 9d3 3sd3 aointqo sAd
if
4?
i}
j
DATs
.
%
a”
Per ead |
t,
,>ecene
i
senate tingcsaipuoidas ae 241, ELE
£0
Miwoeeah yt
asst notisiidsdo>
oe atiw eft yd indguord et 3i olux s
base
942
aottelaigal
yd bsor1ctns
sd {fede ofa
dtkw
yiqmoo
ow?
dauodtis
Istotbut
of stmulisi
sd Liede
s10tsaei3
qma3n02
,asdgta
syisos1
sot Ifst of
roi sasmgbut
,3asba9teb
mo
io
beysdoetbh esw Itaomgbut
Io aoljusitesr
aot solicsaa bas saueap
besquonorq
sd3
Lsgutaoo
eld es red
stiw
at 10d Ve
,sissdiA
Iagutmeo
bemasb
ek etdgiz
ted2 bas
tebaex
Isokjesiesloss
Lstonivotq
to yiiitug aesd eved o3 moftsvaqse
ted
[ngutnon
etdgix
os
cast baedeul
to orxot ofT
od3
1x02 tnemgbut
itktintel¢
bluow etxu02
asbivorq
40 sexosh
ez
Of asters
it
efit
me al
sacitkisg
bas amo
Jneabroqesy
notions
xo?
nottysisess
aren
ee
adT
to sotjvitiesr
Iegutnoo
sidsmoase1.
on nds
Jyorisiw nottiseeb
Snome best s bas tdguoxd ditwdt10t
sd ysr
| e673 828 .1 [8€0L) ae
10@
-0E€
4.0 SOL. [AS6L) omx0 .v sox0
AWW
Lf [ESOL] zrsel'O .v yrsetlO
ee ae
| ofWS.2
.
[Viel] stbord .v sthoxa ve
aew eitwieds dotdw ak sonstecl
os
70 s3on sigue
.tebro sit 03 sonetbedoetb
“Vv
10% bemoelrqmt
L) .98@ £1 .do ,OV@L .A.2.9 359A anokialef ofzeamod on (.521A) ae See |semen Pyare peopel? oval so,
j
oat
5
.
=
— Be
D3).
years
may In
have and
have
India,
wide
the
rights
Act,
should
judicial
of
of of
the
nature
certain
about
courts
great
use
insisted
but
conjugal
for
to
of
the
rights
courts
this
Pench
society,
act,
Even marital
according
changed of when
before
exercise to
England,
not
a sound
secure
the
to Privy
But
the Hindu
intercourse
a decree
unlike
performance.
have
to misunderstandings
it will
upon
judges
especially
up due
that
cases
where
of restitution
Peisveone
was,
specific
courts
dependency
decrees
conditions this
the
female
of breaking
in exceptional
Before
of
in the Hindu
by the
by imposing
of a suit
the
in the
the verge
intrigues
recognition
Gaines judgments
the
the ongliaeue of
said
notions
is on
continue
restitution
statutory
are
it was
discretion
welfare
in the
or
since
old
is
bond
spouses
Marriage
only
that
discretion
the marriage
for
there
exhibited
conjugal
of
elapsed
the
action
aeons
the Act
tenes
gave
a
meee
99 (Altes) The-Domestic RelationswActy, R.Suk 1970,-ch..113,, See also (Sask) The Queen's Bench Act, 1960, Ch. 35, Sec. which has similar provisions like Alberta.
.Sec. 4 24 & 25
B.S. Sinha: "The Hindu Marriage Act 1955: hestslarion. 01/908) S.C.De Vol. 6, 2jeat
in
100 An Experiment 30.
Social
101 Bindal*y. Kaunsilia [1883] A.1DsR. c(All) 126: , 'The.court,observed that the texts of Hindu law relating to conjugal cohabitation and imposing restriction upon the liberty of wife, and placing her under the control
of her De
ce
husband, Buzloor
are v.
merely
moral
Shumsoonia
precepts
(1909)
but
11 M.1.A.
rules
of
law."
551.
ee 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act runs as follows: (1) Where either the husband or the wife has without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply to the District Court for restitution of conjugal rights and the court on
being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. (2) Nothing shall be pleaded in answer to a petition of restitution of conjugal rights which shall not be a ground for judicial separation or for nullity of marriage or for divorce.
«VEE
-
y
| esgbul stadw edavoo sf) to ednomgbut
Ye miaee aks3199 sxe susis .stbal aT
7
bogreects’ Sid SuMIRANGED ‘oun’ std! Sucdp SAeeMRON MAS ab viaueensane oS eee ee ee en acilw ylletoeqas ,y2siooe ubmtH edd ot seu \tsetg Io at eidgtt Lagutnos agnuibasteisbuvsete 05 sub qu gntisstd
bat
ada stoted asy%
ton satmsopyeini bowor
443 9%uo9e sottos !
a
Jad?
attwoo
of3
,bnslumd
ads yd batatant
yvvixt
209A odd
oF
sud
esolstthnoo
editinw
gaibyeoos
,i58
sidd
,asw
.sonamtotisq
sd?
Io gsugiztsat sd3 10 esevoge ed? to ssw jt ,39A sgetriaM
[[ltw 2h asess ‘Siesneaene gt tud suntinos
03 esToSb & noqu
-iisayod
& oveg
O08 nolieiex 93
[ssttem
@ Sarotaxo
to sgiesv edt mo at baod sgsittsem
bluode
goteoqmt yd soljexpetbh si0oted
EOL .Siiw
(stoibut
sdjt to srsifsew
eatdgt:
Isgutmos
lo noljyiisesz
okitceqa
107 Jiva
& to Studan
eae
etit
vigo
o1 moktingoost
102
edz at
y1osuisje
ee db .99@ CLE «do ,OVGE .A.2.4 390A anotssleA ottesmo efT (, 635A) as a as 1902 ee .AD , ORCL ‘dak dons e'dssu siT Giles?) oels 992 eszedtA sitll enotetvorg tsllmte esd dotdw
Jatooe mt tnamixegxd gh
:2t0f toA sanhsyeM uboih edT"
CE a6 E£ .8 .foV .d.9.2 [800L}
™
9.9 BSL 237A
OL
$f i
Pe Pye| SEL
.3tA
;
as:
19.9 dd baa @SE eda
peearee aa
| fi
342.
(iii)
Oppositions
A little-used proposed
so.
16
the
condemned
to
opposition the
mother the
can
strict
other
provided
and
damages.
to marriage
are
as
‘ in
case
the
the
of
20
of
18
the
or
father;
: is
A neither
mother,
father
nor
a proposed
consort
who
insane
[Ba
grandparents,
is
ab
father
marriage
proposed
the
:
father
uncles,
Zul
any
although
a
in
doing
ae,
may
who may make
already of
married
the
where
there
father
one
the
tutor
; in
is no mother
cousins
where
person
related
or
interdicted
an to
first
not
;
is
be
19 the ; of a minor;
a minor or
to
opposition
mother,
in default
aunts
tutor;
or
interest
the
persons
2 marriage of
an
if
a person or
opposition
;
and
The
follows:
proposed
the
having
summary
than
and
consorts;
by which
by a person
costs
future
case
:
is
opponent,
pay
is
be made
:
procedure
dismissed
of
procedure
marriage
The
to Marriage
there
; allied
for
to
F I) insanity.
NULLOLY (i)
Causes
of Nullity
The
causes
of nullity
16 INGE
Mave
COelGgier
Atte
1025 win Geis
Art.
lS 6—G. GC.
aly 18 19 Ait 2 a
GG
20 Avi
136.C5C.
2h Ae ie Lordy. 22 Art.
14d.
CsCx
of marriage
are
(i)
lack
of
consent,
which
may
8 03
lias nt xd bobtvosg: able
anttob at ee.
seitie
oe gitved mosi9q & vd oben odago ogsirxaa bron
et aokskeoqqo od il bee ytemmve
bas tobase ab gxsb9207q_ odT oF oe
od yam ,teditom x0 rert3s3 oda medd zodjie ,3menoqqo siz beeekmetb
ne sdigm ysin odw anoexeq oT
XE pogamsb bas. asao9 yeq oF bemmebag>
eno ot bekwxam yhaotis moetsq 8 :ewollo? as exe sgettism 03 noliteogqo oy
xsiide) of to tiueteb at xo 199381 903 St 23 z0en02 e2u3u2 sd to ons OF some s to sgetitism beeogotq of3 io 9e89 93 at sod3om
nt w3u3 vedjom owed
od
on 2} s19t3
stsdw
scmim
steiw
aatagoo
perk? 1
to
batsiay
apemsn
beiltis
SS a sbisencts tot
besolbiesel
5 to egsirtam
atoun
Xcs
,asloau
1S stu
Jom dguodtis
yon
samant
bseoqomq
ada to sees
,2tastagbastg
08
,zsijom
tsrist
et odw 3x0eN09
aft
x9ti382 10
tediienat &
beeeqotg
yTELIm =([8) yitifut to eseus9 (1) yom doldw ,aasemod
16 seal
to eseuss edT
(t) exes systrrem to yitifua
BL 4.9.9 [88 .9xA
4.9.0 288 «tA ia 29-0 OEL «37h
| 5
fs
ee 2-9
VEL goer
343.
be
invoked
only
parties
continue
lack
consent
of
(iii)
lack
between ; (vi)
of
by the to
parties
cohabit,
ceased
to
parental
persons
within
eee
consent
related
: solemnization
themselves
or
by an
to
and
only
six months (ii)
the
: incompetent
after
consorts
marriage
eine ae
(v)
lack
if raised,
of
the
if
cause
essential
, 28 officer;
of
insufficient
of ate bekioe
of
the
n (vii)
the age;
(iv)
marriage
pubt temtane |
} existence
: a prior
of
, 29 marriage. (ii)
Actions
The
action
Superior
Court.
A marriage of
either
if
contracted
marriage
or
to
Annul
in nullity
although
both
of
in good
produces
the
23
Arts.
148and
149
C.C.
Oland
151
(GG.
24 Ant
154)
CG.
ny Artes. 26 Arts.
Joe
and
55
C.C.
Arcs
..'!5oeand.
15/7
C.C.
27 28 AGE A eS60C .O.
29 Arto
PES
CoO
Nae,
Aes
OlOe
30
of marriage
declared husband
faith.
civil
Marriage
30
effects
null and
is
instituted
produces
wife
If only in favor
and
one of
civil
with
party that
before
the
effects
regard
to
was
in good
party
alone,
in favor the
children,
faith and
in
the
- 9ft3: tp paveay st hina xte a Soap snotot teak to 23708009 (tk) i+ ot 3$1 seseaie to ager rien cathe spires (Vv.
.
»)
nitside oe
iedtoiidug Lotimimes to tos! (v) tobag s io someteles
4?
ot me
(ikv)
"7
ibokite ‘7 be renee :
BS seoifho onsieqanont assoni
syoted beturtiect
08 (tv)
at sgabrsem to ythiIon al mottos ie
Tue dive: ag
tovet
nk atosits
Livits esoubotq
odd of beagot
edt diist ot
bos
Pall
i4Al
i an at
|
date bas stiw base bosdend od3 Yo ta0d 10 ted3le te
boog at saw viteq ono vino aI ,onofe
Ge
tlum bersioeb dgoodsia ogsizren A 706
_meshlido
SIAS
=|
yiIveq taeda
oe
tie?
to toval nk atos3te
Cee
tate
boog ak besoetta0o
tivhs asouboxg ogeiytsm
.
ora es
.0.9 Qdf bas BAI.
4
3.0 ser oa 9.9 féf bos O2t.exaA” as)
‘
2.9 28h baw’ Beiasla
344.
favor
of
the
marriage
action civil
produce
to
effects
judgment
and
extent,
payable
referred
[C]
DIVORCE Unlike
always
divorce. bed
other
and
board
not
consorts.
to
Dissolution
and
the
The
in the
failure and
civil fix
other.
of
litigation long
of
final
Marriages
court
refusal
of
fix
the
pronounce
they
their
Sees
nature
alimentary
producing
the
to
to
that
and
amount
that
conclusions
the
effects
the
request
was
of
the
to
pension
civil
Annulment
any
effects
recognized
in
this
the
Divorce
law
of
of
Canada
of Marriages
which,
in
to
1968,
until
by the Quebec
passed
hooey
leading
separation
Canada
except
available
Quebec
to
from
province.
of
Quebec
indissoluble
Senate
Act
Ontario,
legislation
a permanent
nevertheless
the
sanction
including
to
civil
was
Dominion,
directed
of
by the
marriage
of Resolution
the
may
refused
enactment
Divorce
be made
implicit
the
bcs
rien
been
recognized that
an
provisions
has
the
since
judgment
spouse
to as
must
pronounce
the
However,
declared
way
both
steadfastly
Until
was
can
the hive
effects
constitutes
by one
of
the marriage
e.g.,
are
issue
civil
annul
The
has
children
divorce
recently,
death
of
one
domiciliaries
in accordance
The
of
supremacy
with of
the by
the
the
31 Art.
164.°C.G.
2 Goodfellow
v.
Smith
For
detailed
(1968)
C.S.
427.
33 a more
description
annulable marriage, see Trudel ed, Vol. Ly ps. 402 GEL,
the
putative
effects
'"'Traite
of
de Droit
Civil
34 L963
Statutes
of Canada
12) Eliz.
1h Chap.
at yboms1 elds oF sexvoos7
'
TER 0G tl rata dawoonh y
7 ao
@4!
nodw
pl
es
v aio,
. “a8. II .stig BL oedoup * as3utst2 oa ar tye 1
eet:
of bee
/
ait
ale wy a
aati eo | a 1949 281 ag?
ef cf ts See lad At smoez al yorid ,erarto mt °*:glodinw
St
-bsbosset {Iiw
Jjsi2 esoustemuo1tto et noljestlisnoosy
esw 31 dotriw oi tittqa od
Bie foljos2
bertupos
robauw geanimon s taco
ot aotzose
Juo
2ed of jedft cottamyotat
od gatiiiw ef. yiqqs
betjaiog tad3awi sven
\ asancsdT
yns seolsetb o3 beritupst sd ton
.tosmtatoqqs eid gatrub (9) (£1)
soltioea
sasdt
dokdw guttzemos
oo jug amolsetetqretat
gt mwobiss1td Iatitzsm to Joai sAT ad3
fo sausoed
Jud
,eosingoost
;
3.8.0.8)
SSO (bE)
.H.0.0' 2 (0801)
yusolo
7
dotwettesd
.v
é
dotwetitesd 8
[fmettesvanatT}]
SES (bE)
.H.d.0 @ (OVOL)
3.0 .v .2.7
tmebnegesA ;OL) (bS) .8.c.0 08 (8aeL) a bad sd modw vd samow teridons ditw gaivil waorikjeq
v Jeteesaasino »bLido
v
INS .A.0,0
+1 (yet) -¥28 .2.0
V tigtswistrox9 Ql) nosdall .v moed
tuovsebors o3 309A afd? aebou tav09 s yd betenimon noereg A (f) £8 eidtaacoq rired3 of weiv 6 diitw sgektxem 6 oF estdisq of3 teises o2 agnibesssord Isasl yos nt sldsileqmon +o tasteqmoo jon at notjisiltonosser ¥vihosqso etd ot mtd ot dbase coktacbaummosyo noleetmbs yas saoloetb o3 .9e0qruq tsd9 1oY JxvoO2 ef3 to senimon edz an
solteoinummos
ro colesimbs yas to to bse gaidtyns to somebivad § (S)
egsiirse # ot aotiysq od? detees of Wwovssbas as io sets09 of3 al sbsm yas ni sidtestmbs ton ak sobistitonovey ‘etd toasag: shad 63 weiv 5s ditw .agnibsssorq Isgel i}
35)’.
sections,
one
exercise
broad be
too
finds much
view
of
the
adopted
so
as
the
phrase
‘for
application apart
been
or
so
The and
(ii)
apart
injustice
three
year
avoid
should such
separation
to apply
or
of
to dispense
with
this
requirement
where
quite
of
cohabiting But
separendi other
the
the
that
possibility
and
taking
Gladman
v.
is
the
may
still
refuse
fault.
a broad
come
to
suggested,
the
and
apart
should
This
means
that
and
liberal
agreements
where
the
to
live
parties
have
forces.
of
‘intent’
deal
fault
to
seem
much
particularly
parties
section
of difficulty
It would
have
up marital
life
have
hanes”
Gladman
to recognize
obviously
a definite
humanitarian
Foes
to
as mutual
a great
of
been
separate
situations
courts.
that
courts
there
of
party
things
has
have
no
and
more in
4(1) (e) (i) often
reasonable
circumstances
intention
whatsoever
again.
often
situation
the
apparent
as
be given
even
caused
part
is
living
requirement
the
it
of
As
uncontrollable
the
particularly
on
period
include
or faults
matters.
consideration
reason'
to
principles
these
by certain
attempt has
in
any as
certain
weight
to
judicial
drawn
that
(1969)
1970) S00 .te)
again
would
feelings
instances
6 D.L.R.
22.
longer
life
apart
some
The
no
the
any so
not
intention requiring
be just
towards
of
realities
the
insanity
350.
Herman v. Herman (1969) 3 D.L.R. 551. Kallwies v. Kallwies (1970) 12 D.L.K. 206. Kennedy v. Kennedy (1969) 2 D.L.R. (3d) 405.
in
of or
even
animus
that
other
and
the
the
the
but
fact
only
that
in
Ps Oat Eiiou
rat
|
|
|
ae
03 smoo ovat estust x0 x ‘eatgtontsg pkesxs tala, etext eno ,anotiose .
‘ot
EV egenaiae apes
ihe
sabe
*
doth.)
bluoda s3sqs bas eaazages gnivit Yo praia Vc j
edt
es
Isutum
atmemsorgs
ved eslixsq
03
cotzce8
asonstequaxts
Spry t
to segs
path nant
sit yiqgs 03 3qmsj36 oiT
asd (tt) bos
sd4
no sokteufat
biuow
.atxvoo
tI
sd3
to J1sq
40 jtnomsttupss
2ivei
odd
e9l3xeq
sved
of
a8 08 ootasotiqas
mis3195 yd ——
aiteltensbeods
at yivslvotsisq
solitasiat
tevocetsiw
.
to Isab jse7g s beauss ylueluoljisq
donum mage
stom
sidenoesst
&
10 nokse 715998 aaron
to Jnemextupst
‘3Jneact'
bia yiivotl@tb
aatto
ae hie
setds oid ee vely bso1d ont
sbuton? ot
dove
agntds
sexsi epeivaeers asve
«299702 (t)(s)(1)s
ie 4
bre beord s asvig adbluode "noese7 sy 102" sasidg od
isvediti oF
Oe ae
-dived ot a8 notsezebhen09 btovs ou en of besqobs od
jadi snssm akdT
evil
gweal. Ane t\4.)
iWw>Z
sana
o9
whe
ar
Sf
coal talconmoue, behPeltiem okSoakeigltBe
363.
APPENDIX
I
CONSTITUTIONAL
It was Act,
1867
pointed
provides
Federal
Dominion
Section
91 of
of
subjects
laws
the Act
with
are
contained
the
provincial
this
Section
over
100
problems laws
in
which
of
fall
a no-man's this and
[A]
ago,
are
the
land
been
within
to
INTERPRETATIONS
is
of
the
clearly
the
a mere
social
which
B.N.A.
on
areas
the
do
have
been
Whilst
interpretations
so,
the
others
The
mentioned
WITH
REFERENCE
Act
have
become
laws
Dominion
powers
1867
of
these
in enacting
enacted
of
prevailing
Some
the Provinces.
has
in which
pores
of
enact
generality
Parliament
to
of
by
the
relevant
provisions
of
Sec.
91 and
92 at
or
into
purpose the
a source
LAW
of much
I page
of
Dominion
in Chapter
TO FAMILY
Chap.
the
in areas
1 See
the
classes
may
the
problems.
legislative
outline
the
conditions
in view
Dominion
and
exact
B.N.A.
the
to
between
Parliament
law making
of activity
the Dominion
powers
indicates
those
empowered
sphere
the
for
America
the Provinces.
limits
social-legal of
of
which
The
provides
North
law making
Dominion
legislatures
OF THE
provisions
the
Sections,
sloth
analyze
since
section
exclusive
of
British
legislatures
Canada.
these
by the
the
the
inappropriate
a source
between
is
of
have
provincial
either
the
92 which
it
of
to which
whole
in which
Provinces
These
and
today,
caused
Appendix the
the
have
them
areas
division
legislatures
may
I that
is a general
in Section
are
activity
the
reference to
years
upon
for
in Chapter
Parliament
applicable
placed
out
CONUNDRUM
46.
lI.
b:
Sere,
4 xanga
i
«
4
abt ites
&
092)
win
acu
Mop r@gp « VV:
Sie
oq3I 3uo beantesw d0 sotismA eax detaixa sd? sand I setqeok VO8L
era neswied extewoq gataam wsi ofa lo soketvibh az 102 esbivorq
390A
.asontvord sft.to esivisletsel ofa bas taometiis% aotnimod [stebet 8 at 329A sf3 to I@ notioee
Istensg
dolilw aoljsee
oft aedextbat
asaesio
tosne yom Joematiaed sotntmod of3s dotdw 03 sonsistet diiw sjostdue to
io swoe
ef3
assis
ojnt
mt swel
.ca
sit
xo noimimod
to ssoqruq aoknimod
oft
.I tetqsdd
oAT
aeiwisletgel
ovsd
need
siatiqorqqent
03
,emotine2
solntmod
sds
to sotu0e
eemvtsleigel
to ytivisos
to etedge
Svlisfakge!
nk benottnem
nesd
dosxo
esd sniltyo
aid
00L
3z9v0
,.ogs B189Y
mod3t noqu bsosiq
& 9T5
amsidoig
sie
sd
Istomtvorg
onl? aidtiw
stem
o3
6 sonte
ot ewsl
to yiivisos
wedtie
Ils? dotdw
bast
e'osBm-on &
ofa asewied
oft ssyisos
913
yem morjose
et If doitcdw at assis
sved doltdw
e168
Istonivotg
edd yd beeuss
to diole
.asoniverTd eft bes moiatmod
to etswoq
evad
,.ysbo3
seeds
yitesio
berswoqme
ob ot
bezoame
svievloxs
ewsl
ak bentsjaoo
S@ motso0s2
dotdw
esbitvo1rq
{egsi-I[atooe
.emeldoiq
ot iosmsilint
yd exsdio
at
to weiv
of3
anobiste1qrsinit
gnitosas
Istooa
ecolsibaos
gailisvetq
saciid
anidem wel
I sewoq
talidw
toi
seot
at esexs
dotdw
to olorw ed? o3 sidsoltiqqs
.sbsns)
off
oft ao etimti
yitisvemsg
et xibasqgA
asonivo1d
etd3
edd
bas
[A] doum to soxwoe
s smoosd svsd 9A
.A.M.& oft to anotatvo1g
sesdT
sft 992 .d6 egeq I .qsdO Js S@ bre L€ .28@ . to emotetvorg Insvolex “ ab »
0p is
: i
ben ami ini 27) ag o. mi)
laa
came
cei beit
_ >) al
i 1) t? cary
aa}
in ew? rere
364.
difficulty
in
the
development
and
interpretation
of
family
law
in
Canada.
The
first
law making varying
problem
power
under
Dominion
Parliament
the
extent
91(26).7
law.
law making
The
law)
legislation view
Parliament of which
but
which
a restrictive
of
the
Section
Dominion
Parliament's
91 has
been
subject
that
neither
are
of
the
the view
Legislatures or
not
otherwise, over
arising
the
in the
field
were over
field
shape
(eg.
of
to
the
the
given any
(eg. marriage
interpretation
lawyers
comprehensive
.eeee-[26]
any
field field
of of
concrete
and
classes
divorce). of
subject
enumerated
4
take
legislative in
Section
:
the
view
powers 91;
and
that over
nee
the all
that
Dominion matters,
this
some
comprehensive
Marriage and Divorce and any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislature of the province.
3 See
The
1939,
to
91.
;
types
was
within"
Constitutional has
exclusive
the matter
"came
are
Provincial
authority
over
Section
Other
the
jurisdiction,
gave
in
lawyers”
nor
or
listed
of
Section
Constitutional
authority
This
one
interpretations.
Some
family
is
O'Connor
Annex
1.
Report
pages
to
the
Senate
of
Canada
on
the
B.N.A.
Act,
25-30.
4
See MacDonald: The Constitution Bike med ate pace 29),
in a Changing
World:
(1948)
26 Can.
nk wal yitme2 to notteterqyeial hem. Sunapee’ 92 nt ie e'inemsilis? mokmtmof ef3 to ta91x0 si to ano eb meidoz dextd off oJ tdostdue msed aad [€ sots082
S4asp.2e noljos2 asbny rewoq gniasm wel
» -@nokssiorqisini gaiyrsyv edt tesdiien
tad?
weiv
sfj
to ots Carell
fanottuttianod
smo2
woe osvig o1sw eetwisletgel Istontvor® sf#¥ som tnometizsd notntmot to bisi?
vas
Qo bIstt
19Vv0
.g9)
aistofem
—saiwtedio
bisf?
x6 evtaufoxs
offs tovo
,aotjotbetawt
Jom esw yttrodivus
ro y3irionsus
goidam wel sdT
to sqsde oft nt gertvitvs we3tem of? revo
salt
tud (wel yitmsi
.(9o10vEib bas sasirrem
.go) Biott sft "ntdatw omeo" dotiw molsslatgel
Jostdve
oF mottato1qretal
Yo aseesio
of
svitotziest
8 sveg wstv elit
.f@ sotsoa2 noinimotl
smoe
at?
.aredtsm
sviensdotamo>
isis
wotv
tsdi
bos
sds3
* reywal
svitjeletgel
et9woq
Ils 1svo
sitfa
sd3
Isnoltuttzenod
oviansdexqmos 91s
ot betstemuns
;1€ sots592
at -bstetl t9d30
ead tasmetiis4 esqy?
dokdw
io
Ss
sidjiw gnimes xetjem yas bns sozevid bos egataisM etd? ot betsxsewns atoaftdue to eseeslo oft to yns ofi3 midtiw smox 03 bemeb od jon [fade moliose etuian
stevitq
to eseasls
of3
10 [scol
s to sz933em
to moltetemune
to eeslo
sf3 mi boataqmos
atds yd etostdua todss ait o3 ylovievlpxe bengte -aoniverq
~30A
.A.W.4
ort aco sbanad
[98] Seep eee
=
sda to stu3sleigol
€ é 952 to atten? efit of tr0oqsH pene siT .O€-28 asgeq .I xonnA ,CECI
if
.med O& (8420)
:bhtoW gatagedd
»
ot
sotivitieno)
af
Raptr jal9s2
sgsqts {S$ ,.8.4
£
365%
legislative
gives
the
nature
within
opinions
legislatures the
cl
even
of
if
Section
the
the
and
extent
that
specific
legislate. Court
view
is
that
the
exclusive
to
the
Section
areas This
Supreme
may
of not
92
is
the
subjects
:
province
may
be
it appearsto fall
listed
.
legislate
with
Conversely, any legislation needs
may
Conner?
constitutional
language
:
to
certain
provinces
Privy
in Section
Parliament
restricted
of
92
of
a local
view
is also
canes?
judgments
in references.
another
contained general
only
which
by some
Yet
is
provincial
supported and
ambit
of
provinces
under
reference
a local
enacted
a general
general
family
these
nature
of
and
Section to
91
topics
despite the
pertaining
Dominion
to
the
:
provincial
subject
the
topics.
eae
by the
under
list
legislatures,
matter
listed
8
under
91.
A problem
concerning
law
arises
from
interpretation
5 Marriage Citizens
Legislation Reference (1912) A.C. 880 at 886. Insurance Co. v. Parsons [1881] 7 A.C. 96.
Johannesson v. A JG2 Cotr Canada’ Citizens
West St. Paul vil iC Pa Rieond Co.
v.
Parsons
(1881)
at 302, 28 Seat) 299-304,.
7 A.C.
96.
Marriage Legislation Reference (1912) A.C. 880. Kerr v. Kerr and A.G. for Ontario (1934) S.C.R.
723;
Deen.
Insurance
[1952] 2 S.C:R. 292 Ch N. Ris Gi958)LS2 Gar
(1934)
OOO.
Reference concerning Ontario Sr ees LOS) i Stub Ropes«
Provincial
Legislation
on
Adoption
tae
|
'
|
j
i
;
A i fv
nw
P, A! a)
S@ motzae® da3 si63xo od9 09 bosS¥adeas Und BkJidan svideterge!
;
‘
Isool g to seem st iioeqe s atsdtes estutelatgelr Istontvoxq pit an
onis..et webw ehdt)) etatebget. cet 29onkvorg abe tote alten eadian esaompbut, * sboned to 21v09 one 1qUu2 ban! “peseved: void smoe yd bedroqque -aeonsistetot sfotnaiqo bns
eatqos 283 etiqesb
to tell sft sadd at weiv Lanoktuttsenos rsdyons 497 bas esonkvorg 5a2 03 svteltides ef $0 soksee2 ot bentsim0s
|
motakmott oft I0.ant29p2 aabnu bedell atsotdue asa’ Yo sgaugnal Esvene4 -29iqoy
of)
of gminisizsq
5 cusieteigae
wsbou
seed
bsjell
03 sonszetet
stujaq
fstontvorg
Iss0l ssi
res3gsm tostdue
dtiw sssletgel
som yen \ sromat 'te4
8 Yo motislaigel
yd bstosns
yas yiserevnod
od yam sonivozq
Isteass s rebay
edi
Ii st of etesqqs
to absent
tt it aes
{© notjose norsejeiqisInk
mori
asekts
wel
ylime)
[syeneg
gotaisom0>
moldozq
A
088 38 088 .9.A (SICI) gomeystet notisletge! onsixz1eM 02
.2.A 1 [288E]
eroexed
sv soc
I ensst3to 2
-SO€ ts SOS .f.008 L (S2e@L)
08
|
.D.A t (£881)
2
£
a
-V goeesnossoL
|
emoered
t
088 .9.A (SICE) 2509393
(AECL) 780 18.5.2 (BERT) ofte;
+Pd£
moIqobA ao noljslatget Letomivoyd obzsinO 5
‘
}
i.
of
ee
ho
;
AN
;
gatatsono2 aons1sieh
-8@E 18.9.2
(BECL)
.o39
8
:
366.
of the ambit Supposing
of the words
that
nullity,
these
judicial
‘marriage
words
and divorce'
include
separation,
power
to
restitution
enact
of
of marriage,
ancillary
orders
and
of children,
can
these
words
the whole
field
of "family
broadly
to include
adoption,
legitimacy
and
children,
juveniles,
maintenance
children,
married
Since
women's
provincial
Section
92(13)
matters
and
and
since
the
has
such
meaning
The
Supreme
provincial
is
this:
which
the
of
The
would
are
Supreme
be given 5 in
for of
the
to
legislatures
Court,
in this
"Canadian
Family
use
of
laws
concerning neglected and
Paehees their
power
dealing
such
under
with
such
provincial
whether
today
91. 10
‘ concerning
. Ontario
etc.
consideration
of
more
parents
it is doubtful
a Reference
of
of
alimony
even
wards,
statutes
Section
substantive
subjects
dower
validity
courts
and
of wives,
made
provincial
by the
as maintenance,
guardians
have
rights,
law" viz.
and
91(26).
concerning
be interpreted
rights
on Adoption,
point
the
enact
stated,
In point
the matters control
to
upheld
Court
starting
property
such
support
Constitutional
legislation
"The to us
been
and
legislatures
(14)
legislation a wide
legitimation,
laws
conjugal
jactitation custody
in Section
law
it
of the
statutes
referred
is not
disputed
that
this
legislation
the
provinces."
Reference,
realised
are
entirely
that
there
within
was
a
9 See Master: ate 27), 10 (1938)
S.C.R.
398.
Law"
unpublished
Manitoba
(1970-1971)
5
a eer 7
-00€
-(OS)10 aod3992 mb'ooxovth bas sgatazam! ebiow sitsIo stdad3 s 30 gantoze2n0 ewal 9 josns 03 sewoq sbuloat abzow sae? seri aataogque -#idgkt Lagutnoo Yo sotiuiiiest ylriel et noliteoq
sved ofxsinO bne sitos2 svoM ,sdotinsM
,newedojsies?
,siisdiA
4109 sH3 bbb aa Bkesd smae of3 no ooxveb ystilua s 3mszg 03 motsothatzut
371%
for
Divorce
Imperial
Island
and Matrimonial
Matrimonial
have
conferring
Causes
eighteenth
or
jurisdiction
is uncertain.
English
Although
the
Causes Act
1857.
early
on
the
New
courts.
of these
and
decrees
of nullity
jurisdiction
and
grounds
of jurisdiction
Historically
this
atter
of
questions
Whether
decree
(2)
or
the
Prince
colonial
position
Edward
statutes
in Newfoundland
have
jurisdiction
question is not
a serious
of at
extent all
social
to grant
of
clear.
problem
in Canada
arise:
courts
declaration
on what
grounds
jurisdiction
Alberta:
the
posed
and
the
1867.
The (1)
the
under
is applicable.
provinces
declarations
uncertainty
century
The
to 1833
in 1870,
Brunswick
nineteenth
law prior
courts
in England
In
leading
case
on
the
province
have
jurisdiction
to
grant
is
the
a
of nullity;
can
over
Board
in
such
this
v.
cause
Board
the
relief
and
point
be given?
of
i.e.
what
extent
action?
the
Attorney-General
whether
the
provincial
cases
which
indicate
for
Alberta,
courts
ily
in Alberta
LT 1919.
A.C.
956.
P.C.
Other
that
the Alberta
courts have jurisdiction to grant a nullity decree are: Henderson (orse Breen) v. Breen. 1923. 2 W.W.R. 480 Alberta C.A. Reid (orse Francis) v. Francis. 1929. 3 W.W.R. 102; Ross v. MacQueen 1948. 2 D.L.R. 536; Adelman v. Adelman. 1948 1
WeWek.- LO07L Albertas) Gray. 15958 15 DoLeR.. Prior to to grant
BaeVantiss See
also
COX Vv. COX. 2nd 404.
1919 the Alberta Court a nullity decree. Lolo. saWeWeRe Llane R.S.A. 1955. Domestic
1916. took
the
Relations
40 D.u.k. view
Act,
it
295. lacked
Ch.
89,
tlobson Vv. jurisdiction
sec.
1/7.
1te
baie
in cing teach
una iail alee ibstiniat none:
2oiuista Istnofoo yxuinos dinsetentn yl. 0)dgnsesdgte svat babfel basibavotwet ot notiteoq sdT
.2et2vox 644 ao old>tbakrwt gnt1rs tao
s9ldsotiqqs st EBL oF roiyq wel detignd se
Jaeitg OF nolsotbalrw,
Qo dn99xs .wssio sbsas®
at metdetq
Sag
i
5
eved esontvoxg aaest to eiiwo0s ofJ dguonsta
3% soksseup
Ile
>
.nistraonrat
edt ytiilum to soesaeb bas enoltexslo9b
38 jon e! noljotbetawt
Istoes
oh!
avotyse
& bseoq
Yo ebnvotg bas noliotbatzwt
yiatstrsonu
altds yilsotzoseth
Saal sats vaiies anottesup
& Inexg 03 gottobbelwut eved soatvotq sd3 nl ato.
sAT
sd3 s9dasdW
(1)
iwiilive to sotistelosh xo sst99b tnetxs
edt 2i isdw
.9.k
‘Saevtg od tetist dova ass ebnuorg Taottos
to sauso
tadw so
(S)
ekdd tevo nottstbetzut 20
\t gdaodEA tot Lexens)-yomxoI33A oft bae brsod .v Bisod al
:ea79dIA
stvadIA mt eaywes Letontvo1q oft teddedw tntoq 949 no g2s0 gatbssl of3
.
stisdlA sdt ted
noersbasH
otsokbat dobdw easeao ted30
.9.2 .d22
sarodiA O83 .F.W.W SS .O8@L SOL .A.WiW E .OSOL .atomast
.a9e78 .v (o9978 Set0) wv (atonayt sero) bieA
£ 8$@L .mamlobA .v nomlebA ;6€2 .A.T.0 $ .8A0L noedoH
.D.A,
exe ss199b ytiilun s Jastg of motsotbetwt svad etwo> A.D
“V
DR.» : .OLOL
,2eL
Tod
1
Oa
~B8I0L
wad
Vv xoD.
AOA
.bnS
aoeufosM .v e208
~83%9dIA
VOL.
.A.I.0 EL .82CL
AWW
es
. yer
noitotbefsut bedost th. wetv eda dood sav0d sa1tedLA oy CLCE 03 TORTI +] AL a
ae
pS
roeer
|
.se799b yaiIlun s tns1g 03 -o NOLL 2.028 Uo -B1eL .M uve” 28 Saas vaige ackitatell otsaemod ie -A.2.8 oals 992
9
a eile
of
©
iT
,aibaraal’d
ie
75s.
4
S?
peamtetioest
261.207.0060
wipes
ow neadat Gi2etee o adbhg os aekzaiietmet?
37 2
have
jurisdiction
Council
was
of the
the
same
and
Matrimonial
1857.
Alberta. Supreme
Court
the
superior
and
courts
those
conferred
hence
the
is
equally
issue
of
the basis
question problem
is
arises
of nullity the
ambit
there
is
exercised
which of
a
under
the
lacuna
its
of
Matrimonial could
grounds
has
for
also
the
Act
of
of
for
the the to
of
exercise
the
Among
the
were
1857
these
and powers
related
the
Privy
to the Council
of nullity,
North
areas
law,
enact
Act
Here,
America
the
authority the
the
the
For
under
of
nullity
next
constitutional those
law which
Dominion
legislation
decrees
1857,
Act.
of marriage
since
much
to grant
Causes
decree.
Parliament's
Canadian
286.
Court
judges
exercise
opinion
jurisdiction
the
British
to
1870.
of
analogous.
Court
to
July
Causes
Act
the
all
judges
had
Divorce
upon
the
Privy
Act,
authority
by these
declarations
the
America
Boatd tHe issue
in the Matrimonial
authority
15th
and
Dominion
41 °D-L.R.
as
which
for
Causes
1907),
and
to decrees
17A (1918)
laws
In Board v.
being
Court
Supreme
Act
the
relate
in
Court
the
in Alberta
it conferred
but
provided of
the
decree,
Alberta
that
create
exercised
Alberta
laws.
jurisdiction
the
for
a divorce
the
the
North
in England
powers
Imperial
Court
to
exercised
the
as
British
Supreme
all
nullity,
the Matrimonial
authority
Courts
administer
applicable
Since
on
Superior
these
to grant
this
9 of the
by the
Supreme
administer
authority
of
by and
the
of
courts
Causes
under
92 of
had
in England
administered
right
Section
the
declaration
Matrimonial
exercise
of
or
the provincial
in England
(Section
power
that
over
legislature
jurisdiction
and
of
In the
a decree
opinion
Causes
By virtue
laws
grant
jurisdiction
provincial
all
to
fall
grounds
within
Section
91(26),
Parliament
has
concerning
marriage.
not
@
ie
|
e
She,
i"
;
'
;
yvi7rd odd ,yabifea Io soksstelosb zo soneah at aaheegy ebviietide igabaubenell bad st1sdfA at atsvoo
[ronued
Islomivorq ef? 3ad3s motmlgo sd2 to asw
s.10vid x0? 3009 ad3 es aseusd IstcombzieM tsvo mofsotbetwl smse od3 IstnomtsisM
to toA es@un0
,39A wottomA dotoM detsisd
543
betrstnes
aid moqu
eft [fs
,(YOOL
eft
artaw
ber
axewoq
.OTB8L
asgbut
(e8l
edt
sasft
tolrsque
at ajivoo
10? 31u02
smerqu2 od3 sonsd
.ewal seoda
isdetaimbs
s jastg
sue 297996
sotovtbh
to asotte1siosb
bas asszs9b
03 sidsotiqqs
to eee109b
txsaa oda
soazg
, Veal
fenottustitanos
adi
absuo1g s20d] 10%
of nolbtolbetiwt
asd
395A agaued IsinomtiteM sisi
J1wod
siaedIA
sds
oft at bebivorq
03
bas
jdgtr
yilsups
-evogoisns gated motjotbeltrut viiilua
awsel
eda yd be11sin09 seon3
od3
to sotnigqo
eft
,vitilun
bluos sttediA
sft Lis
bas tewoq
bas yd berstetaimbs
IstisqmI
of) beset -v bised ol
sueet
yvirI
baeeignd
sf3
d2v0D smexque
eda to motsolbalrwl
[Le tatetatmbs
erswoq
IatnomttieM
oefs
wotrsqu2
.si1ediA
sd3 ol
to @ nokios%)
beetorsxe
yd bsetotsxe
satoxsxs
saedd
ofd
ewal
Istontvo1q
bed stutsletget
to setotexe
ametque2 a2
to as
dae
viut
to 195A s9sus9
sia ot betsler [tonwod
toA gry0D
off dotdw
to esghut
gromA
etd3
3f vitrodsus
.\C8l
Yo $C soltse2to sutaiv ya
bas basigad at eto)
03 yiivodiup
setorsxe
sda
o3 yJtrodjus
oda siset>
102 Jxv0D ometqu2
aii
bas at eseusd Istnomt3rteM od3 19bo8v bosigad
et
to sueet
sonks
atesd od m0
.997995 ods yo abavorg to teds et aoljesup
.39A sottomA dizoM detstuai os3 reba eeetzs msIdoxq
atdtiw Ife dotdw wel ogetszam 3o agate sd2 07 odsfex dotiw yittfun 30 (88)£2 mgtsos2? xobav yibzodjus e'3aometirs% notatmod sii io 3idma on3 ton wal giosmatized aotatmod sit sonte .wil ‘gstbans9 at sovesl 6 ek 9x9d3
.sgaitisa grinteonos aolisiaigel doum joss 03 yvitrofdius ast bsetoxsxs
|
28S A.d.d £6 (8LCL)
ANE
ro
i
SIDs Hence, the
for
requirements
courts
the
grounds
relief
the
other
with
formalities.
a nullity where
of
that
the
the
the Marriage
effect
Act
leading
case
provincial in
a case
provincial
a marriage.
from
courts where
and
is to
legislature's
case,
provides
the
and
Supreme
had
power
to
was
enact
the Alberta
19
635 at pages-639:
S.A. 1925, ch. 39 sec. 30.
- 40.
the
type
have
and
courts
granted
essential
at
authority
with
of
Courts),
present.
to
enact
of non-compliance
jurisdiction
to
grant
formalities
a ground,
a particular
by
provision
invalid.
of
v.
Underwood,
Canada
to
within
laws
would
such
Neilson Court
18
1934. - S.C. R;
with
jurisdiction
of nullity
words,
effect
have
the marriage
of Alberta
ground
courts
Act
practice
Alberta
the
the
the
to capacity
of non-compliance
render
in Alberta
In this
Alberta
under
to
Courts
has
with
provincial
Ecclesiastical
pertain
non-compliance
Alberta,
the
by the
in the
back
other
prescribe
Marriage
of
In
the
authority
refers
legislature to
grounds
In Attorney-General
which
grounds
the
provincial
their
Ecclesiastical
provincial
Hence on
1857
validity,
upon
applicable
formalities
decree the
the
essential
granted
the
these are
to non-compliance
in England.
decree
as
hand,
Act
which
relate
to draw
Courts
of marriage,
concerning
stating
obliged
or
insofar
which and
Causes
upon
laws
only
are
Matrimonial
validity
On
capacity
(declaration
the
such
of
Ecclesiastical
relief and
of nullity
in Alberta
Imperial of
grounds
held
grant the
that
a nullity bounds
concerning
Solemnisation
18
of
a the
decree the
solemni zation
of Marriage
Act
of
ibe)
ce
|
|
ri
oa
ieve
d3iw osaptiqnioo~no09 n 92697 atdw. (2httum to pbcniepitit i rakeetl
Latontvor, of9 (xskbbiav Lekscoaas bas ydtosgao20 eanemextupas orl odd 1sbav Yityvod3ue shed? moqu web od beghide ss stzedlA mtedqwos sgiitoayg ot
of dosd azetet dotdw
to sqy3 ss
,~abtow zedyo aI
Vé8L 20A eseusd Istnomrz3eM Ietisqml
.basiged ot atauod LeottestesfooH oft Yo
-(e27009 [sotteatesiood od
yd batastg se1eb
ro noktsrsfosb)
beinsig svad bluow etxvod Iactseateslool edz. dokiw mnogu ebavozg
latinsees
bas yitosqss o3 alst1sq ebavoxg seed3 es ratoent
-tase91q
J6 BStavos
toaas
ot ySizedtue
somsiiqamo-non
jqstg
strsdlA eds ak sldsotiqqs esd stusaletazsi
to joalis
sda sditoas1q
of moisolbelxuvt
estitismroi
yd ,bnuoxg solaiverq
d2iw
evnad sj1voo
ef3
BL
,.bead
bas 2aetsitiamro?
sigediA
sometiqmoo-aon
ed3 somasH
te ebnvozg
93
isivotsxsq
6 dtiw scasilqmos-non sysirzsm
ef3
rehiex
20 ysibilsev redj0 9d3 #0
animeone>
awel
.eststiismrod
daiw
no se1s9b
6 dove asbivorg JoA spsizxeM Latoaivor
-bilsvnt
B
o3
sda
to 359 3%
sid bos
isiisy dove
o1s8 ,sgettrem
Isltontvorq
tshisx
ysiliua s
eds s1zadw vino
‘93 Jedd gotsese
o3 ak JOA sgairisM
sd
io
+beowrsball.v
tsed3 bled sbems)
to t1v00 smerque sis
es1ceb yiitliun s Inaxg ot aoksotbetzut 93. to eeeer of2 midjiw
to aotiaztamelos
gutnissm09
,attediA mort seso
gnibssl
bed asvedIA al et1v00 Ishogivorq
ese yotilua
to bavoxrg od} exedw 9889 8 ab
ewal tonne o3 x9woq e'emwisletgs! Ishoakverg
we:toA agetzweM Yo soltsetomelo?
sitedfA ed
,5e89 eldi ol
.sgsirism s i
.
"
.0a =968 aged ae 8€9 18.9.2 .dECL gs.
a,
caper
hi
oomay
BBL
(06 .998 CE ado .28@L AL? —~
-
=e
we
vw
:
a.
7 o
:
.
,
ws
=>
2a esain 5 tae 7
|
PROGE
@ 24
Be Brajen
Bl
as
ea
a | iven Ma
S74. provided
that
parental
consent
was
marriage
were
underage.
The
Supreme
was
within
North
the
America
complied Hence
terms Act
since
for
the marriage
with
the
province
of non-compliance jurisdiction
decree
of reference
to
was
within
with
give
it was
the
required
Court
of
one
of
the
that
forms
and
and
parties
this of
not
the
the
British
to
relate
provincial
be to
in prescribing
legislation
to
provision
required
did
the
to provincial
the
92(12)
authority
provision;
effect
held
Section
ceremony its
where
capacity.
the
effect
courts
had
by granting
a
of nullity.
In
neither
of
the
of
essential
this
competency
did
not
the
Courts
when
the
case
of
this
It might
legislative
authority.
to
affect
the
of
annulment.
constitutionality
relevant.
Since
the
had
the
Supreme
Court
jurisdiction
to
essential
said
that
province Such
fall
provincial
Court
Ontario
and
and
of
or
the
may
Canada
has
issue
on matters legislation
indicate
whether
a nullity
capacity. to
scope
afford
the
a marriage
legislation
Alberta
to
pertaining
within
was
Dominion
declined
validity
20
legislate
to declare
matters
of marriage
Supreme of
Kerr.
capacity
validity
The
v.
or
safely
within
Kerr
to
case,
of marriage
of
Parliament
related
be
case
Dominion
in Alberta
ground
the
the
validity
affect
nor
the
of
may
provincial be
a ground
accordingly
provincial
solemnisation
so
worded
for
an
upheld
legislation
action
the
rendering
20
(2984) Att.
S.G.R.
Gen.
Kerr v. Sectional vires
of
for
72. Alta.
and
Neilson
v.
Underwood
(1934)
S.C.R.
635
Kerr and Att. Gen. for Ontario (1934) S.C.R. 72 [holding / tand-o4eo0c- the Marriage ‘Act, R.S.0., 1927 Ch. 181 intra the
Ontario
legislature].
as
ett
mY)
.
ate
lait ssedw hextupsy aaw-ameaannu Laas saqania,otavoae : ois 63 antobiq .eget9bov s19w ogsizzs0
note tvoxg atdd sels bled 3209 smoxque edt
943 nhdilw esw Jo, amxes9399 dettial oft Yo (SI)SC not2092 2o sone7 3k sonte JoA sotismA daaoK ed of bettupst euro sdt to smo esw .
sd3 tot d3iw betiqmos .viiosqs® of atefsa tom btb bus yromere> agsirism
jogtte 4d4 gatdiioaerg nt yatrvediue eat atddtw asw somtvorg sid sone 20 Latontvorq od3 bas ;notetvotg sft) d2tw sonsiiqmos-nom,
ber exes
Istomtvetq
s pitkinatgve aéktsleigel
03 dosite evig os nobsokbetavt
.wttiivum Io esixo9b ousat
sla
.V {792 to ses>
mA.
asw
at9dism no stelelgel
notjalatast
[stotbul
betqsccs
bie “Sat sag.)
ods otdtiw
35 bebssmmoz9%
egaq
teda 2
sit
sdT
to aotisi seeds 3sn3 to exswog
tud toemsiixe{
sotatmod
sd3
Josns
03 Tewog
‘aotusslaigel
asiu3sje
-sonkvorq sd oo
jas
noltqmees
sft no yloasaeqqe
gattos
,orvislaigel
£02 sgsq Tal .d2d .590 esaeded emomoD Yo seus |
-e3fA 102
.H.W.Wt
ESOL
basal cathenss”
phe oe Ny OPE eee =Vv pee 992
brews oj 19wo04q ad3 sds mols3saes
sii mitdtiw stots ted3 brs 9210vib 03 Isjasbtoat
tr0qque
aotnimof adi io
somoee eoviish snemilie1
.292869 Se bluow
agnthesso31g
oii
oT
sorovib
to enoketyorg
mi Ystior
yralloto>
bssws 02
athens) bas
s9Woq sdT
sf3 xd bstslugor ylevteuloxs sd of ts9qqs won TT
TT
d€ lo saucH
bas 93sae2
afT Yo satiimmod
.v@-82
IJntol Istseqe
.qq 38 ,(Ye0L — sbansd)
sft
to J10qeH
soroyid mao anomnod ve
£03 .3.A (@S@L) meme .v namysH 252 oldersqsent bas dtiw betstooses ,notatqoym at ,ai 31" aft jada evisas to sgnedo etd? tnexg of rewoq sd3 mo1t gitkw odd to? somagrstaism setoeb of yIirodaus svsd etiwo0s :bise
medeiteH
brol
baA
sism of d2v09 ods Yo xowoq sid asdd [blod] ob I” easixtsm red to aotsulosatb ofa no sitw s toi notatvorg
6 dove s9%99b 03 ewoq adj to jasbloot yrseesosn 8 et eJesteint sft at yloxem tom beristnoo ,fotjuloeatb
Jonaso etiw oft 3ed3 has .2kfduq sf3 to 3ud 9itw edz to sit gotdoyat most
Ueeted sbuloeiq jasnevoo nwo tod yd
to Joes 9d3io notsotbatrut mor? t1poo eft sbulosizg " poltotbetwt jsda 20 satoxexs si3 ae
Si
Saag
Sf yeas’ .v xee bevisedo .U setued ,VOE .f.9.M
[e1sbe% edd tsd3 suxy et 31" tagia inomatixeq 8 moqu mottotbetzst rein: oF es oe sisietgol ".ynomtis to t933am 8 at t1w0> Latontvorq
BE
385.
Divorce 1968
Act
(Canada),
authorize
alimony
the
by either
children.
The
1968.
courts spouse
The
and
in Section
include
only
thereto,
and
for
civil
Parliament has
been
thrust
and
of
that
the
per
se
dealt
payment
of maintenance
for
the
of those
have
powers
with
British
not
under
in Whyte
America
92,
enacted
ere
of
been
Act
should
incidental
so
to that
legislate any
by the
Dominion
This
challenge
provinces.
v.
of
"marriage
jurisdiction
Section
the
term
Act
support
has
all matters
custody
of
the
North
exclusive
or
sections
is that
and
province
the
the
the
maintenance
violate
effectively
of
Thee’ of the Divorce
concerning
challenge
provinces
concerning would
the
the
orders
validity
decree
within
10 and
payment
91(26)
a divorce
rights
legislation
to make
Constitutional
challenged. divorce"
Sections
and
Todd
v.
Tedaes
=)
See Chapter VIII. The difference between the terms "alimony" and "maintenance" is that alimony refers to payments made to a wife qua wife so long as she retains that status, whereas a maintenance payment may be made to any person and would include a woman who was formerly the payor's wife. Thus Section 10 uses the
terminology
of "alimony"
divorce
whilst
Section
11 uses
she
still
the
for
payments
retains
terminology
the
made
to a wife
pending
status
of wife,
whereas
"maintenance
a
payments”.
Maintenance must be sought at the time of trial. If no maintenance order is made at this time, the petitioner cannot subsequently Seemat .useet Todd vl Todd .19705) » Se Dd Rap 92) (G6, )e o"She who seeks maintenance must speak at the trial or forever thereafter
hold
her
peace".
40 1969 . S69 WOW Re! 536% Mans CA. Sealso Ritchie ve-Ritchieyl970
28 Dslekee
Srd.y
6/6,,B GCG,
4l 1969.
Buckly, Federal
68 W.W.R.
315
B.C.S.C.
1969 68 W.W.R. Divorce Act 1968
Law Journal 209. Report of the Special 56-60.
See
Also
Niccolls
v.
Niccolls
and
307, B.C.S.C. See also Jordan, "The and the Constitution" 1968. 14 McGill
Joint
Committee
on Divorce
pages
27-29
and
’
-
j
7
-B8E
ye
¥
7,
7
¥
390A soxovid-oriy vw “re bas or anokIo52 oer « (bee) DOA sozovid
:
io Inomyaq erates etebro esisa OF efxv09 of) estrodtus seer to Jxoqque edd %0} Sonemoseiem to Jmombas ~sq seuoqe Wists yd’yoomtls seed aad anotiose seoft to yithiisv fanebawytiendd eft .morbLtdo ogeiviam" 2a a3 infd ot Sguelfeds ad3° 26!Jebxds sHT .begnsl eds bivoda 394 aokiemA AatoM Wetttyd af Yo (dS)fe fokise2 nt “goxovib bas {ainabtoni stelatgeal
erstiam [fs jon bas se 19q setosb sox0vkb
o3 nolioiberrut
evieuloxs
ge yiao sbulont
eved esontvorq ont psd a
,o3szed3
Yas Ind? o# ,S@ aoktos® xsbay somtvorg ed3 akdsiw addgtx Itvto 102 motnimod
sit yd betosas
sgmeiians
atiT
OF ber .v BboT
yboseuo
.asesmivotq
sd
xo sonsnetnism to exswoq
adi
gaiatesmo5
sieloty
notislatgel
bivow
cehias tele
Bre OF ay Mi .v stydW af dittw afasb ylovitostis
nosed esi )
bas
“et
“yoomiis"
emzed
sd?
nsewied
stiw s o3 obem eamemyeq sonstatnicm
a asersdw
sone19l3tb
sAT
o3 ateies ysomtia
,auvis3a
Jef?
extassy
.ITIV
x93qsid
992
jedd at "sonsnsintem"
sda es guol oe sitw sup
odw asmow 6 sbulont bivow bus moateq ys of sham od yam Jnomysq sii eeau OL mokiosé evdT .sitw a! royeq edd ylresrto? esaw
8 anibasgq stiw s of sbem etasmyaq esotsilw
,.sitw to evdasa
.atnsayeq
sousnsinism
vijnsupsedpe
ow of8”
wettseweds
stel.tsdw sox0ovib
ese LL motto?
to eats sid oe diguoe)ed Qeum sonsastoreM
Jonnaas tenokitieq
(.9.8) SC At. G@ x9vex0?
[Ltda sda
yvgoloninrte. et
sonenstnian'
on MW =.ietis
Io ygolonimist
103 “yaombis'
atid eaolaser
,sints “
sd2
,OVOL pbbat.v
a
tp sbsm et r9bz0
p22 .3r sse
ro Isbit oda 35° dreqe Jaum garsns 3resm eitos2
-"9989q eM blod
'
: ) AnD
7 eh
£2
Hilig A. WwW
e3
we
Os
.eaer
-9.4 ONO .bw& .Aad.d € er ShQ028 ~v ships sionals 992
dap edtonoi «vyalloosth oalA suidBahia ete. #.W.W 83 “ede
rirdoM br 8a bos @S-S
oels 992 .0,2.0.8 .YOE .a.W.W 88 CdCl ,yladous © i Leamtaineraitener: bas 880L 395A soxvovid I[s19b9T pbivhew? “yz> 3208 Lsnzvel wal
segeg eozorba fate)oebakeene adel Intosq@ 243 to. droqet a4
ic,
&@ ar. aes Wale
08-02
Lie
, y 7:
i; 1)
-
.:
i | fet
al.
306: where
the
Columbia intra
and
Court both
vires
were
intra
the
should
the
that,
to
be noted,
aforementioned in divorce
proceedings
settlementson
divorce
all
powers
corollary
opinions
provinces
North
of any
Court
of
Divorce
America
(Canada),
which
are
British
Act
Act
were
1867
1968
statute
are
confined
accordingly subject
exercisable
now
to
to
statutes
federal
were
legislation the
corollary
supersede
inconsistent
corollary
respective
be reasonable
proceedings,
the
remain
the
provincial
conflicting
in divorce
Act
it may
that
and
the
concerning
aforementioned
however,
Supreme
11 of
British
the
relief
federal
the
the
statutes
the
10 and
and
the Divorce
provincial
of
and
valid.
absence
corollary
of
Sections
judicials
whereas
in the
in Manitoba
91(26)
the Dominion
provisions of
Section
of
vires
relating
that
constitutionally
of
conclude
stated
of
In view
powers
of Appeal
any
epeveeten
provisions
Lt
of
the
to maintenance
and
corollary
powers
provincial
in matrimonial
provisions
relating
control,
causes
custody
other
as
do
to also
than
divorce.
42 Attorney (Za)? 82%
General
of
British
Columbia
v.
Smith;
(1967)
65a). Lak.
43 See Payne: supra note at p. 6; See also The Report Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons (Canada - 1967) at p. 59. Wherein it is suggested Dominion Parliament may lack jurisdiction to enact relating to the disposition of property in divorce
of the Special on Divorce that the legislation proceedings.
* 88
COR, 29h aS az eres 18 soredte ans enh | sbileyxifanotiuatyenese1ew bas evivosqes? oft gciaisonos anotatqo alatotbol edd 30 weky ol», | 6d oldenoass: od yam 22 esontvorg sdt brs motakmod sis 30 exswog eYew eolviste Lstonbvorq beaottnemexots sii esezesw .tadd sbuLanos
faxshe? yntsotlimes yas to ssnceda ed3 ot gotty sajak
nottefelgel
vin'ior0s dd ,egmtbesootq sovowkh nt iskies yrsllowoo of gaksals7
ad? to shotetvoiq bas sonsnegatam
vbotaus o4 celts
exswoq
gnitelss
,lotimos
ob ea
nedd
s1s otuteta
of. bambino
of
Jooidue
bono kjmsms tots
Is19bet
sotovibat
hoauvdh.. semenseetaiee
otsas
e19woq: wxsiloxoo IIs
at eldselousxs
[stnombazem
943,to
,~beton ed bluode
bas egatbesso1q
yigatbyosos
yrsiioroo
to snolelvorq
Istoatvoxg
vysklotos edi tad3 ,xsvswod
Istoniverg
esevao
tedto
estutaze
dotdw
sts
tredetanoont
; * datvsrsds
71
to4. 9970vi0 efi
, (sbamsd)
wom 88!
yea sheetequa
enotetvoiq
HatG 23 (TRL) pighme ov skdimile od3
istooq2
io 1¥0qea afT pls
gotovid ao enommoD to savell bas
eda ded? bodesggue at It
josns oF coma
notiafetgei
+ pamttbee201q gox0vkb sk ysieqo7q :
i
ada to 99tatmmoD amtol
ee
g nokatmod |
antalengeshody 03 galisiex ye
f
cf
Tree
i
wrt
So, AD),
a
|
pe
tomyed 982.
502 ¢@ .q Js eton sique
pnn
> Nn Mebie
als Ly
reves ©
Sat,
up
me: ks Finged
é
elon/e
[E]
CONCLUSION As
under
a result
the
of
present
Parliament
has
1.
Marriage:
the
provinces
to have
province
on
the Parliament
Divorce.
3.
Nullity:
legislate
operate
of
which
The
upon
to contract
With marriage
an
exclusive
sue
appear
for
annulment
to
the
right
Sec.
that
of matters
an
as of
or
that
has
(Marriage
and
for
been
stated,
within
Divorce
or
of
on
conferred
the as
to
powers
to
capacity
that
the
effect
solemnization has
of
ostensibly
determines
will
nor
required
a nullity.
the
cannot
where
of marriage
powers
Parliament
annulment
of
a contract.
to
impotence
formerly
fall
the
law which
legislature
celebration
was
they
the
Dominion
legislature
stipulates
Dominion
of
the
the marriage
amend
action
status
that
concerning:
conditions
of
relating
the
ground
the
Separation
arguable 91(26)
Parliament
to render
laws
exclusive
Dominion be
the
the
conferred
validity
has
the
to
enact
to
the
except,
the
to
concluded
solemnization
so
relating
a provincial
on
power
them
be
on
exception
The
Province,
in which
enact
to-the
Parliament
to make
formalities
Judicial
least
the
to
conferred
of
affect
would
annulment
of
4,
may
exception
circumstances thus
by way
enables
matters
within
is
it may
it appears
91
relating
Canada.
marriage.
the
powers,
power
Dominion
of non-compliance
discussion
Section
laws
legislature
solemnization
of
under
Exclusive
the
2.
above
division
power
in
provincial
the
lie.
the
It would
abolish
the
right
enlarge
the
grounds
such
enlargement
relates
of marriage.
called
divorce
the meaning the
B.N.A.
and
it
is
of divorce Act).
So
at
in
far
to
this
3643 bobvioneosd yom Itcitadel
aaa
potmtwot elt edd exssqqs 22 ~ereWwoq ‘to depart -odene sq.km Abbas sgakassomo> ewsl toncs o3 L@ noltos® reba rswoq ead toomBtlis? to sttelelasl
ods no berrstnon et rswoq Svieuinxd
sgeivusw lo molitsstameloe
herrsigos
erswoq sit oF soltqeoxs
aid co bextetuon ot 288 anolilbao> -JoeTI9a09
62 erswog bstlupa1
govlts
elt. od gatisie1
svieuloxs
yiroaqss
sit
ted
to motsssingetion
aa
auvtete
astslugtiea
-vtkilue
vidizasieo
wo
edd
tooetis
toometize1 oft
o2
s1uteletgsi
qotatmod
nolatmod
sit
ersijism
ssorovid
§=.S
:yitifuu
.€
noqu
eislaigel
.ogstitsm tos13IM05
oF
of sd bluow sonsliqmos-non
to
arajisa els
Istonivotg
yam dotiw aorsesinmsios
gaiisist
eft xwshost
of gattaler
asd Insmetized
.sbsers to tnometizeT era no
insmetixse? sokataoG
6 sgeltvasm
sf3
ewsl evel o3 esontvorq sf3
of madd asidens
& to yYbblisv
to moljiqsaxs
,sontvotl
oft dai
ef3 aldsiw sgsizism
ed3 esoierraisbh dotdw wel sit boems to adem ot Jdgtz evteuloxs biuyow 3I
wolf
ILiw toomiunns
«1
to yew yd sieteqo sonlvorq od ot
oa 1tewoq eff
tosas
ssgstvieM
rot noktos
as
op fo tdw at 295063 emuozts
og tigix ef3 detlods Joans> myosn lakgas or arene & ten3 189qq5 euda abnwvoxg add sgisine ton sonsdogat edi aie asJulox 2
eggs tioye see ay
‘sid nto -domtune 308arts
ibot0re need oe
qaous Insane io
duabaden - Esseacaatl pr ‘ asisitiaarol
te at 3t bas soxovtb =.
Tae
2s5v re,
sit oF
ee
ey
nt sotovib to gniasom ass nidiiw tist yods ted sidsuygis senol
fetid wi 02 .(29A .A.M.@ offs Hosorovi0 basegstya¥)_git eat 4 ‘iy
&
388.
section
has
statutes
within the
been
narrowly
indicate
the
ambit
ambit
of
concerning
It
of
the
rights
submitted
generally
over
[including
the
of
eke formalities
: concerning
The
alimony
conjunction
with
of
rights.
matrimonial
rules
of
absence
of
Corollary
any
The
supersedes
any
inconsistent
provincial
all
other
aspects
not as
the
Parliament
judicial
separation
exception
to make
laws
as
judicial
separation
by provisional
legislation Act
provincial
they or
. province.
same
1968,
statutes
arise
legislatures of family
specifically
such
aspects
law
have [e.g.
provided
are
of
for
concern
law making
reliefs on
in the
matters.
now
which
settlements
powers
are
to
the
concerning
of property
by the Dominion province.
in
restitution
statutes
vires
over
(Canada)
the
the
corollary
intra
and
concerning
insofar
Provinces
of
A in
children
are
extend
legislations
sole
statutes
Divorce
statutes
; the marriage
of
Canadian
federal
of
as
the
regulated
the
enact
but within
therewith.
The
insofar
of
provincial
of
to
the Dominion
power
nullity,
been
provisions
Gr
divorce]
with
custody
conflicting
Provisions
of
Benn solemnisation
has
parliament
to be
province.
reliefs
has
provincial
to be considered
of matrimonial
such
In most
causes
powers
powers
rights]
and
not
law and
the dominion
the
field
for
divorce,
court.
the
Parliament
maintenance
conjugal
within
conjugal
Dominion
of
Case
are
legislative
entire
legislation
reliefs
powers
that
restitution
are
mere
provincial
civil
is
that
interpreted.
on
Parliament,
in
Intoatvorg baswal 9289 .botexqzetal ¢
i
ply
wi
ad 09
7
ei¢
|
aid
om
“9
ee
¢
od
a
i.
ed o3 Jon sts etetiey one gait eteotbat eotuieie y
re
thong.
WA
SaAgts
iene
eels.
atdaiw aud anompt ting siete od3 to exswog of3 a didms sf3 atdiiw D
age
ve
ae
comm
ust
rmeantdt
tet
soduaede josns 02 exswoq oviteletgel Raueacoaun to tidme od3 .sonlvong ont atdstw eidetx Itvis gninzs9on02 uyi
brotxs
4
s
uly
t¢5astinat ao tn bmod od3 to bare edi isd? betatadue at 31 anotisleatgeal
bis molktereqes 9f3
.2ofivotg
{staomts3.am to ar
[atotbut
io notiqsoxs
gaimzsoa0D
nt setts
ewal
at etetisx
10
nolisseqse
yrsllotes
a3
dake taidate Isgutmoo
9f3 to notisatameloa
sadism o3 tewoq
ved? as seatoemt
aokjutites:
es Patios no 107 nobasletgel gntbutont]
aloe
efi al sasirram
etijas ed? vaee eilexsnag
io notju3 sess
gnatma1s2902 eotsitadabl
ead Joomsiizsed nobatwod sit
.¢€
astbitdo
te yvbosaus bas s2nensjolsa yromite
Istotbut
,vsitilua
esantvord
asthane)
,ootevtb daiw notjonutnos
Jeom al
-atdaly Isgutaoo to
ao astuisia Lenotetvosq yd beislugs1 nesd asd eseuso letnomt+tam od3 mi pgaxiv sijot ste astuteite
-Btstvem eme2
ovo
worr ,88@f
nolialeigal
(sbaned)
9% fotdw eatpteta
Istonkvorg edT
Isrebe? gabsotiinos
.tawos to eslut
yas to sonseds
390A sotovid sit Io eaokelvord neato sao
Leiontverq eft to anotekvorq yas esbsetsque
ula hwered3" gnotetecoont gnbertoone> erewoq gukitam wel sved eetuisletgel Isiontvorq dT en)
Ble
.d
no Ydasqo7g lo etnsmlssse .g.5] wel yltmsi Yo e3o9qee z9d30 IIs _inomeplxe? aotmbeo dsi4 yd 102 bebiver Ylleobttoeqe jon [sszovib ae
Serene to om aJooges dove en ssioen! Z 7
semeeie
pet
toll
it,
aks
4 jy ee
Bil
ae
at @bkie,
2
oth
bij ewes
weety
Was}
Ada aay
ef dtugce
ay ae
sete| >
laa
;
1
f To
389 APPENDIX
II
GLOSSARY Anuloma
Union
Apastamba
A great Hindu sage and that bears his name
Ardhangini
A woman
Aurasa
Legitimate
Bandu
Cognate
Brahmans
A higher
Coparcenary
A narrower body than the joint family. only those persons who acquire by birth the joint or coparcenary property.
in which
the
is half son
her of
caste
male
of
a higher
a writer
husband
the
among
is
and
of
an
caste
important
completes
smriti
him
body
Hindus
It an
includes interest
in
Dasiputra
Son
Devdasi
Female
Dharma
Righteousness,
Dharmasastra
Science of Dharma, jurisprudence; they are generally works written in verse or prose or mixed prose and
of
a kept
concubine
attendant
of law,
an
idol
duty,
merit
(of
an
individual)
verses Dowry
Any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given between the parties to the marriage, or by any person to any person at, before or after the marriage
Gotra
Agnatic
Joint
Hindu
Family
lineage
A Joint Hindu Family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters
Kanyadan
A ceremony of giving time of marriage
Karta
Manager
Kaseph
Kiddushim
A betrothal
ceremony
the
bride
among
the
to
the
Jewish
Katuba
A written contract between the parties validity of the Jewish marriage
Kutumba
Family
bridegroom
community essential
at
in to
the
India the
et
‘
:
oy
ey - me) ih Pa
“aa
a, Wy
saga efit to at née ais | titime s0nt0qmi ap Jo yet s ban sks | foe
min astelqno> he brsdevi roi hae—s
. vb
”:
-ybod ott Yordiow eibabstget ro) >. AaaruA Sf
wameged
|
. enamide,
substi geome ayeeo) rodgit A asbulont at féovodnt
antdusnos
ro Inkot ad7
tgead a to noe
_
etiuqtesd ~
, tembyed
fobk ns to tapbaosie slamet ..... (isubbvibat
ne tp) thyem o3tb «wel ,ee@onevostigli
Uileroneg s72 yond :sonebutgetaut ,eiteedd | vonakoe hom saotq
baxim to 9#otq to sexav of metiizw edtow
|.
srr
sitesesmredd
peayey
wary
mit’
yIxegorg wh
99
Sawotl
us wd I paige 8ott 69 aekzanq orld Bema ye movig egeiiiem $f tod2e 4 sroled ,Je noatag YnR OF poatEg
s' Sip
eepeets
ei 03 boesge) to
Ciiawesa sidsulav 20
|
visnso tego et ty aeee
31 .\l ioe Yatot edz asd3 ybod yewortsmA ne ddatd vd srlupos odw enoarsg seod3 y¥lno
YgasqouTg YxensdtegoD
1
beat
~
syscall olsnnga |
arrearage ig nt eespin 7 exsoigueb betttememy bar RAVEM....4st > oye re bagmaed
ti
on
et ae
oa Mien i rf. Sjgebeian 20
|
eae= ty ; 5
4 ld A oe laa oh ll "5 bad ab Staweipe> sao adske ae esi age is ond ke
a
Sn ee
aowranoo: saa tw Wh) \/
rink
390 Manu
The composer of the code of Manu or Laws of Manu or Manu Smriti. His works have always been treated by Hindu sages and commentators, from the earliest times, as being of paramount authority.
Nagnika
A girl
Nibandha
Digest
Nirakarana
Expulsion
Pandits
Individuals
Panigrahana
A ceremony in which the bridegroom holds hand and goes around the sacred fire
Pinda
Rice-bowl
Pratiloma
Union
Pujari
Priest
Sagotra
Members
Samskara
Sacrament. marriage
Sapinda
Agnatic
Saptapadi
A ceremony in which the bride seven steps around the sacred
Sati
An
of
of
See
Shulka
Price
Sukeal feat
Text
the
years
are
the
or
Cognate
custom
funeral
who
is
learned
female
same
A set
ancient
‘Slowerulieat
who
in which
husband's
of
tender
unmindful
in
is
her
nudity
Dharmasastra
of higher
the
bride's
caste
gotra
of
ceremonies
who
share
performed
in
of burning
the
same
and the fire the
to
accomplish
rice-bowl.
bridegroom
widow
alive
on
take
her
pyre.
Vedas
embodying
the
recorded
traditional or
(legal)
remembered
learning;
the body
law
Talak
Divorce
Varadakshina
Any property or valuable security contemplation of marriage
Vedas
The the cal
given
or
received
in
general name of the chief scriptural authorities of Hindus; it is properly applied to the four canoniworks entitled severally the Rigveda, Yajurveda,
Samaveda
Yajnavalkya
of
and
Atharvaveda
A great Hindu sage and that bears his name
a writer
of
an
important
smriti
ar od se’: to a A “soho: srase yitbun sad 14 {tb anu uh oslw ¢
ic?
oo
Ares
oh) ¢ oetapgtd
é
a
at boureol o16 ofw elsubivipal
ameseei0t
e’abiud ond ablor maougsbied eda dotdw ot yoomeaea. A
sradsirginsd
s1tl betose sd3 beuors as0g bar basil ivy
oda dobiw mt cote
teigkt to ak elemet
ajeno
twod-a9 1
|
deliqmesne
of
bewrotreg
.Dwod-solt
lina
mootgebisd
ebard 1+ eel saoltistTt
tistut
‘deebet
ex30R amee oid to Carian
‘sxtogne
-Insme1952 ogelris
esndean?
A
lo jaa
estnomayso |
ody stengod
ofd ol erere
emne
mifnnd!
ris
to ohsangéA
avid bose shitd sy dokdw ol yromszsoA otis
bayots Byot2
ong
berate
aevee
sod ne sv ile wobkw oid gatened yo Mojeus dnetoan oA -stq texvenut a! baeded
papal ase a
vbad efi jgnknissl
(ieget) Deeotsbert . wel
Boxsduemsy x0 ‘
é
7 rae
| 3xeT 5e1 offs ito bor
AeP\oW
fi
i iesgate
ot bevieoet 40 névig yatsuose! atime a0scanned! agaltisa
- orb
jus
1
dey
pokseignssnos
iaus ) aay abera _
Lesutqlive isido au?
semanI
gia sone Deo oe os Yi
:
dl ee
ean Weenie
f
ee
sh
la,
oe
Byebe APPENDIX TABLE
Vell
923
Adelman
(1948)
General
v.Jaffney
Allardyce
Anath
v Mitchell
Anonymous
Appibai
Ardesser
A.I.R.
v Perozeboye
45
57 Bom.
(1959)
(1856)
6 M.I.A.
73 W.W:R.
Atmaram
v Bajirao
(1953)
62
I.A.
of Alberta
v Look
Attorney
General
of Alberta
and
Attorney
General
of B.C.
Attorney
General
of
Bags
1970)
A.1.R.
3 All.E.R.«
BvM
7 W.W.R.
(1918)
260
B.C.)
2263 L197
v Babineau
(1924)
4 D.L.R.
Baddeley
v Mortlock
(1816)
Holt
Bagshaw Bala. Bai
v Bagshaw Baia
Awabai
Baker
v Balfour,
Balubhai Baxter
Bell
22 Bom.
71 W.W.R.
241
(1948)
v Beaudet
M.P.R.
E.R.
A.I.R.
(1960)
Bom.
155
302
72 W.W.R.
Shiammal
197
(1952)
A.I.R.
Appamati
(1958)
A.I.R.
A.I.R.
E.R.
Aiyer
(1970)
v Ponnak
430
51
(1945)
Strachan
Subramaniyam
1 K.B.
v Narasu
Stevenson
A.I.R.
3 All
v Sesha
v
3255
965
Chandra
(1949)
Stevenson
257
358
2 W.W.R.
(1954) (1908)
Aiyer
(U.K)
93) Deb.Re 449
v Narayan
Spicer
State
0.8.)
v Bhagavathamma
E.R.
22 Bom.
29W elk.
bt tene ve ome thnei(1 952)
249
.13) DeL.Re
(1936)
Stoneu(1846)'8
LL
381
2 All
(1970)
155
99
E.R.
v Khershedji
E.R.
E.RY?638.(C3A..)
(1966)
Sherlock
Singha ve sinehe
1 All
68 W.W.R.
2 All
737
0532
D.L.R.
v Shaw
(Mad.)
499
BR.
(1969)
479
I.L.R.
(1959)
VITA
shaw
sherlock¥v:
17 Mad.
P.
301
ROWU17
(1826)156,LeP.J..
v Seminuk
Sheldon
(Bom.)
(1954)
v Schlesinger
DEGttVVesepright:
9547
Bom.
383
(B.C.S.C.)
(1958) 117
Mad.
41
84
we
prrpecacorips ct )
ne
280L eee COND ewe
GET. QuLA’ €°(0 oatwnaidao): awe 108 (.moM) wKid.I (OLCI) sdasbis2 v siasbise CLL .Mi2A.2 (22L) sevegnn2 v xedegnse e? v mgnilrejnse OTA .bsM VL) (A081) aedd
tn
VEN (beM) .#.0.D (A@@L): treboue enavd) v menrevi eee eG) .¢ (#APL) atebause v etsbaus2 22L Aid LIA L (R20L) vegatestde? v aegmtesiiio? [£2 .A.d LLA £ (@20L) a900% v 2002 I .Us4.0a2 (888L) adgtxde? wv 39098 CG .A.d.d SE (ALOL) Anvil
GAS .A.WLW BA (.4.U) (A.D) S€9 .H.E {8 JAR t28 WH.a LIA © 220
O&
(CARL) LA S LEA S (8d0L)
v r9lis2
sauntmee v dumkase (820) wade’ y ware (CECE) wade v ware aobled® v nobledé
.8,d.0 Of (OVOL) aAnoolxede v cloolyede
mod SS (BERL) Epbodersdi v isdatzide S2b
2.9 8 (8881) 9n032 v sr0d2
Coe .A.d.W S CIVCL) dgnte v dante
OO) .bsM (SO@r) MH T.A semedsevegedé ¥ yboanavie Cbd AEG £ (SAUL) dime y ddbme OO@ .A.W.W S (LECL) Maude? v tendo? ES) .teT (8€0L)
ALTA stbandd apyere v ived Ra
BOS .f.2 ILA € (A22L) r90iga v te0tqe OSS .a.9 I (a0@L) Jou v exalt?
"f2 .@ (QNRE) oxtupe v attupe
COL bet £8 (B£2L) toyEA aces? ‘vToqtA ‘sesviak2
a8 smo (S2QL) .H4T.A b4emsqqA vesxe v yedwod 3003638 |
@@L .A.H {fA £ (eat) te + mart SOE AM BL ene orn. ae ase ony
(.0.2.9.8) €8E SW, Ne core
Te shit (B2CL) HATA
|
Laomeid® ao
SLE vmod (GL) .A.1.A
lop13e
v nsd
axbasdeM v a aide " rt Pars.
com
401
wht t vokelly (1835) Swinemar
v Swinemar
pzechtene
T.
3 Knappy
Ranga
Szechter,
Swami
(1970)
9 D.L.R.
(1970),
3-AllesE.Re
v Aravindammal
anni s Vielannis,
(1970).
ihebait
Kumar
erry
Vv. Basant,
jv Hutchinson
Teskey
v Teskey
Thangammal
Thomson
mice
vy Tice,
Timms
67 W.W.R.
134
igAll
ER.
$5ebel.R.092
3 D.L.R.
Tomkins
v Tomkins
(1858)
1 Sw.
Pranter
vy Tranter
(i925)
N.Z.U.R.
tepessy
iratces.
Tscheids
v Tscheids
Umed
v Nagindas
Valter
v Valier
(1970)
(1925)
133
Veerappa
v Michael
Vempa
Veury Vishnu Vort
A.I.R.
Suryamurthi
v Vempa
Verboski
(1969)
A.I.R.
Bom.
246,
Lit.
(1963) A.I.R.
A.P.
424 342
(l836))
L.R.
370.5.
34 Mad.
2.N.5.R.
(1962)
P.
Warden
v Warden
(1951)
O.W.N.
Watson
v Watson
(1938)
P.
258
A.C.
573
Weatherley v Weatherley
Mad.
399
387
sGN.B.))
42
(1947)
381
1 All
(N.S.)
219
496
(2d)
v Walker
373
286
(1941)
v Watkins
(1908)
(3d)
(1957)
(1911)
(Sask.)
122
Mad.
Rep.
v Watts
138
7 D.L.R.
Man.
(1970)
(Ont)
630
(1945)
v Vogt
706
H.C.
Walker
Watts
593
v Hunt
v Akkamma
168
41 D.L.R.
7 Bom.
v Vanzoost
v
(1963)
687
& Tr.
GO Dil.
(1870)
Vanzoost
Velayutha
(1943)
139
6B. Cs)
(1942)
Shirappa
383
636
v Tomberg
v
308
591
Tomberg
Trikamganda
Mad.
379
13 W.L.R.
beGl953))
(1970)
243
235
4 W.W.R.
)e2aDbeRen
(1910)
Mad.
IeLéR.q(Cal.)
(1945)
2 W.W.R.
(1971)
tindal ievolindal toddavotodd,
A.I.R. 17 Mad.
(1945)
v Timms
(4901)—28) 599
(1894)
(195)
905
(1957)
3.0.8,
v Gengayammal
v Thomson
A.I.R.
Singh;
(1968)
v Thomas
201
8 D.leR. yredabll.otesd 4-
“wet ie
wa
:
:3rsdis
Te
(SS$°L)
|
oy109H
SSA .A.B.D d€ € (ASOL)
(OL ~ \ho Br€S)
nolyetaqe? totes"
?renswT
4
"\
ixaeM
* temull
:ntseaull “iad
veilgal tnoeioaL ‘a
2h
?
405 Jorden:
"The
Federal
C1968)
“4
Divorce
MeGilt
Kane:
"History
Keyes:
"The Validity (1967)
of
Act
“Ts,
Dharmasastra" Hall
of Hindu
Law"
(Hague)
"Modern
Khuda
Baksh:
"Studies:
Khuda
Baksh:
"Essays:
Indian
Kronby:
"Divorce
Practice
Kuchler:
"The Law of Engagement
Kumud
"Indian
"Canadian
Latey:
"Conflicts eis
of Cruelty"
Indian
of
Jurisdiction
(1969)
(Oceana-New
Divorce"
Law"
(Bombay)
(Carswell)
(3rd
in Matrimonial
ed.
ed.
-
Causes"
Lipstein:
"Indian
MacDonald:
"The
MacDonald & Ferrier:
"Canadian
Maitland:
"Roman
Manchanda:
"The
Master:
"Canadian
Mayne:
"A Treatise
on
Mitchell:
"Gollusion!)
(1947)
Mitter:
"The
Moore:
"Tntroduction
Morley:
"Administration
Mulla:
"Principles
of Hindu
Mulla:
"Principles
of Mohammedan
O'Gorman:
"Tawers
Matrimonial
Panikar:
"Hindu
Partington:
"Polygamous
Marriages"
"Corrollary
Financial
Yearbook
of
Constitution
Canon
in
Society
the
World"
on
1964)
(1965)
Church
of
Law
and
in Hindu
to
Law"
of Justice Law"
Cross
Divorce"
21
(1969) (London) (3rd
(Manitoba) (Madras)
(1898) ed.-1969)
(1970-71) (llth
ed.-1953)
R627
of Women Canon
26 Can.B.R.
(Allahabad)
Usage"
25.C-.B.
(1948)
England"
(Unpublished)
Hindu
and
(Bombay) (Vol.VI-1957)
(Toronto)
of Divorce''
Law''
at
Affairs"
& Practice"
Practice
Family
and
Law
Law
and
International
in a Changing
Divorce
Position
"Power
-
1966)
Law"
(Calcutta)
(Oxford)
(1967)
in British (Bombay) Law"
Cases"
Road" (1967)
Relief
India"
(13th
(Bombay)
ed.
16
(London) -
(1858)
1966)
(1966)
(Toronto)
(Asia)
(1913)
(1963)
(1961)
I.C.L.Q.
in Nullity
805
and Divorce
Pro-
ceedings - Permanent Orders, Reproduced for the Seminar (Edmonton in Developments in Divorce Law'' (Unpublished) 1972) Apric i Payne:
(1966)
Oo
"Separation Agreements, Ante-Nuptial Contracts Marriage Settlements" (New York) (1937)
Payne:
York)
(lst
Lindey:
Law
303
(1912)
(Butterworths)
Constitutional
Ge Oe
(London)
and
L.R.
(1927)
and Marriage"
of Marriage
in Ontario"
6 Malayan
(London)
& Islamic"
1941)
(1968)
(1964)
& Islamic"
Manual"
2 -
Law Marriage 58
Concept
Constitution"
(Vol.
Rev.
Khetarpal:
Laskin:
the
L.
"Codification
Law
and
(Bombay)
of the Common
Osgoode
Khetarpal:
Desai:
1968
209
(Burroughs)
(2nd
ed.
-
1964)
evr
it
bos 80eh oN aoxevith 63
POS .L.d LLRDoM.
(LdQL = & .f0¥) Cxodmod) ‘a
i hae rs
“otvaaa0 at egeto15M wed. oamoD® ott Yo y
“gift”
82 .vok wl List2
Avaer)
7
— ipy tal sacar
(@dCL) (ougsl), “wn wba 3p. sohsnsRtbod"
Laqusseda
COE id meywteM 9 (vaCL) “ysfeuxD 30 Janne) mxehol”
:egrs3904
(XS@L) (aobpod) “otmelel 8 aatbal :eekbuz2" (Si@l) (mobaod) “oimsfel 3 setbol seyaeed” (CdCl) (edzsowres3ua) "teuneM e9oitosTd sstovid" LD (alzo¥ woli-ens950) “sgeivtsM bas Joomegegndto wed eit" 1 - ,be teal) (a0@l
-
(@00f)
(ysdmod)
.bs bit) “eeausD
“sorovid
(flowered) LIstnomirjaM
bas sgatrzsM
to wad ostbal".
“wad Isnotiujijenod at aolasibelrut
to ejotlin
Zag
bas es981ta09
[stiqul-sinA
{YEOL)
astbseas>"”
,ednemeetgA
i0.4.90.7
)"
‘B@31)
(nobnol)
0i-.bo bet)
(edosttaeM)
dull)
aolie1sqs2"
2 wad sovovid
(aexbeM)
iiseed
bumud ©
:nbteat :ysted
:yobalt
sAT”
intezagtl th IsnodosM
2 bisacodosM ef etrrst
optban
of wad aoas> nemon”
tboal2 tal
“sotavid 20 sotgas7i bas wot sat”
:ebosioasM
“wal cites? natbeasS”
s7eJeah
“sgeel boe wet vbnlH mo sebsasxT A”
:9aveM
(bedatiduqet)
“wotesl lod"
:iledogiM
(e33usie0)
"wet ubatH ot memoW to notsleod sdT”
24994IM
(Tal)
(bi0%x0). "wet? sonsd 03 moksouborsnI”
teto0oM
:
(EL2L)
"sottos7$
“"bralgad to doxudid of
(bedudallA)
(1S-O%CL)
'@l-.b9
(ojnox0T)
preldoud
ClroY wet) “eineuelije2 ogatrzeM
Of (88@L) “biaoW gatgusdd).s at aolsuttjenod (@0@L)
_ tydaout
al
iV .LoV) (ysduod) “attetIA LenotisoresnI to AoodzesY astbhol" A.d.ne9
pielet Se
$2o
sH.8.9
@8 (TdOL)
80) (aobool) "otbrl dake at eottavt to solsexzetmimba” (@8CL ~ .bs AICS)
(yadmod)
"wed ubsatH to eotgionty