GUNARATNAM v. REGISTRAR-GENERAL

041-SLLR-SLLR-2002-V-2-GUNARATNAM-v.-REGISTRAR-GENERAL.pdf


302
Sri Lanka Law Reports
12002] 2 Sri L.R.
GUNARATNAM
v.REGISTRAR-GENERAL
COURT OF APPEALTILAKAWARDANE, J. ANDAMARATUNGA, J.
CA NO. 1031/01AUGUST 30, 2001
Marriage Registration Ordinance s 22, – Amendment No. 12 of 1997 – S. 2Marriage Registration (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1995 – S 15 and 12 – In termsof the Amendment only persons who have completed 18 years of age couldenter into a valid marriage – Parental consent is invalid.
Petitioner is seeking to challenge the order of the Registrar-General, where byhe had refused to register the marriage of one T who was 14 years of age andV who was 18 years. The refusal by the Registrar-General was on the groundthat both parties were under 18 years of age, although the parents of both partieshave consented to the marriage.
Held:
Prior to the Amendment No. 18 of 1995, the prohibiting age of marriagewas contained in section 15 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance.
Subsequently, the prohibited age of marriage was raised, and no marriagecontracted after the coming into force of the new section was consideredto be valid, unless both parties have completed 18 years of age. Thissection operates as an absolute bar against the marriage of persons belowthe age of 18 years.
Per Tilakawardane, J.
"Section 22 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance has also beenamended by the Marriage Registration (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1997.It appears that the framers of the law did not consider the implications of theMarriage Registration (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1995, when they enacted theamendment to section 22 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance."
CA
Gunaratnam v. Registrar-General (Shirani Tilakawardane, J.)303
Per Tilakawardane, J.
"Since the prohibited age of marriages has been raised to 18 years ofage, the absolute bar to marriage must necessarily override the parentalauthority to give consent to the marriage of a party. It was not relevant whetherparents agreed or did not agree to the marriage of their children, only personswho had completed 18 years of age could enter into a valid marriage.”
APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari.
G. H. C. Ameen for petitioner.
M. R. Ameen, SC for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 26, 2001
SHIRANI TILAKAWARDANE, J.
The petitioner has preferred this application challenging the Order ofthe Registrar-General whereby he had refused to register the marriageof Tharmini Murugesu who was 14 years of age and Vishnu JiththanThanabalasingham who was 18 years born on 18. 09. 1983. Therefusal by the Registrar-General (P4) was on the grounds that bothparties were under 18 years of age. The matter to be determinedin this case is whether the order of refusal of registration of marriageof Vishnu Jiththan Thanabalasingham and Tharmini Murugesu wasinvalid in law.
It is clear that the parents of both parties have consented to themarriage. But, the issue becomes then whether in spite of the consent,there is a prohibition in law for the registration of their marriage. Priorto the amendment, the prohibiting age of marriage was containedwithin the provisions of section 15 of the Marriage RegistrationOrdinance. In terms of this section, "No marriage shall be valid, themale party to which has not completed 16 years of age or the female12 . . ."
304
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 2 Sri L.R.
Subsequently, the prohibited age of marriage was raised in termsof an amendment to the said Marriage Registration Ordinance,consequent upon section 2 of the amendment being replaced by 20section 15 of the aforesaid Marriage Registration Ordinance. In termsof the amended section, no marriage contracted after the coming intoforce of this section was considered to be valid, unless both partiesto the marriage have completed 18 years of age.
It is clear, therefore, that this section operates as an absolute baragainst the marriage of persons below the age of 18 years. TharminiMurugesu, the daughter of the petitioner is admittedly under the ageof 18 years, and in the circumstances, the letter of the Registrar-General dated 11.6. 2001 refusing the registration of marriage of aperson under the age of 18 years of age is valid in law.3o
The petitioner has contended that the Registrar-General was boundin terms of section 22 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance thatthe parents of the parties even though one of the parties to themarriage was under the age of 18 years, could with the cosent ofthe parents enter into a contract of marriage even in an extremesituation where one party was a minor and 14 years of age. Section22 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance has also been amendedby the Marriage Registration (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1997. Interms of section 2 whereby consent to marriage of parties was requiredwhere the party was under 18 years of age. It appears that the framers 40of the law did not consider the implication of the Marriage Registration(Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1995 when they enacted the amendmentto section 22 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance.
The matter to be considered is whether the amendment to section22 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance is inconsistent with theamendment to section 15 of the said Marriage Registration Ordinance.
On a cursory reading of the sections, it is clear that no consent ofthe parents could be given where the absolute bar to marriage exists.Therefore, since the prohibited age of marriage has been raised to
CA
Gunaratnam v. Registrar-General (Shirani Tilakawardane, J.)305
18 years of age, the absolute bar to marriage must necessarily override sothe parental authority to give consent to the Marriage RegistrationOrdinance gives a parent –
the authority to give consent to a marriage where a partyis below the age of 18 years and above the prohibited ageof marriage; and
where such consent is required for the said marriage.
Prior to the amendment in terms of the Marriage RegistrationOrdinance, consent of parents was authorised in situations where theywere above the prohibited age of marriage, but had not reached theage where they could consent to marriage as they were under the 60authority of their parents. Parental authority was necessary becausethe law recognized that consent could not be given by a person underthe age of 21 years.
In general, the parental authority was an essential prerequisite forthe marriage of a minor. There was a need for the consent from theparents of such parties. So that in addition to the minor's consentto the marriage, there must be the parental responsibility of consentingto the marriage of a minor. The minority was an impediment to themarriage of a minor. However, the amendment referred to above byAct No. 18 of 1995 expressly and specifically prohibited the age of 70marriage of parties who had not completed 18 years of age. In suchcases, it was not relevant where parents agreed or did not agree tothe marriage of their children. But, only persons who had completed18 years of age could enter into a valid marriage.
It is clear that when these sections are considered, the overallintention of the legislature was that no person can enter into a contractof marriage until they had completed 18 years of age.
306
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 2 Sri L.R.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in interpreting theinconsistency to above, that it was possible for a marriage to becontracted under the prohibited age of 18 years with the consent ofthe parents. However, the prohibition referred to in terms of theamending Act No. 18 of 1995 section 2 is an absolute bar or prohibitionto the contract of a marriage. It is a mandatory prohibition and explicitlystates that after the coming into force of this section (gazetted onthe 20th of October, 1995), no marriage shall be valid unless bothparties have completed 18 years of age. I find that there is nothingambiguous about this prohibition which needs no interpretation.Therefore, on a simple reading of the section, from the date on whichthe amending section became operative, no party under the age of
18 years could contract a valid marriage in Sri Lanka. Parentalauthority or consent to such marriage would be invalid in law as thiswas an absolute prohibition to marriage.
Accordingly, as the petitioner's daughter was below the prohibitedage of marriage, she could not contract a marriage in terms of theaforesaid law. The Registrar-General's refusal to register the marriagein these circumstances is valid in law. The application of the petitioneris refused with costs of Rs. 1,050.
AMARATUNGA, J. – I agree.
Application dismissed.
80
90