Dayawathie v. Gunaratne
1969 Present: Sri Skanda Rajah, J., and Alles, J.M. DAYAWATHIE, Appellant, and W. A. GUNARATNE,Respondent
S. C. 581/1964—D. C. Kurunegala, 1656jD
Marriage of a minor—Registration without father's consent—Subsequent action fordeclaration that the marriage was invalid—Not maintainable — MarriageRegistration Ordinance (Cap. 112), ss. 42, 46.
A wife, who was 18 years old at the time of her marriage, which was registered,sued her husband subsequently praying for a declaration that the marriage wasnull and void on the ground that her father’s consent to the marriage had notbeen obtained.
Held, that sections 42 and 46 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance(Cap. 112) debarred the marriage from being declared invalid.—
A. PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Kurunegala.
W. D. Ounasekera, with W. S. Weerasooria, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
T.B. Dissanayake, for Defendant-Respondent.
SRI SKANDA RAJAH, J.—Dayamithir r. (hnwratne.
February 9, 1966, Sri Skanda Rajah, J.—
The marriage between the Plaintiff-Appellant, who was 18 years and2 months old, and the defendant-respondent was registered on 23.8.1963.
This action was filed praying for a declaration that the marriage wasnull and void on the ground that it was contracted without the ronsentof her father, the next-friend.
The relevant provision in the Marriage Registration Ordinance, Cap. 112,is section 42, which enacts :—
“ After any marriage shall have been registered under this Ordinance
it shall not be necessary in support of such marriage to give proof.
of the consent to any marriage having been given by any person whose
consent thereto was required by any lawnor shall any evidence be
given to prove the contrary in any suit or legal proceedings touching thevalidity of such marriage ’'
The portion italicized above speaks for itself. If evidence regardingwant of consent is shut out by Statute, then it necessarily follows that themarriage cannot be declared invalid on that score.
Want of the requisite consent h not one of the circumstancesmentioned in section 46 which sets out the circumstances in whicha marriage will be null and void.
In Selvaralnam et al. v. Anandavelu 1 do Kretser, J. pointed out.,“ Where the provisions of the Ordinance have been flagrantly flouted,section 42 (new section 46) declared such marriage null and void. Wantof consent was not so drastically treated.” I would respectfully adoptthis dictum.
For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal without'costs.
Atxes, J.—I agree.
E. M. DAYAWATHIE, Appellant, and W. A. GUNARATNE, Respondent