IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 30 of 2007() --------------------------- OP.167/2006 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ PRASANNA PEREIRA, W/O.ROCKY PEREIRA, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOIKKARI HOUSE, PADINJATTUMUKKU, CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O., KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.MAJIDA.S SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------- 1. ROCKEY PEREIRA, S/O.PATHROSE PEREIRA AGED 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANDRIKA COTTAGE, PADINJATTUMUKKU, PUTHENTHOPE, CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O., KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. MARY CHANDRIAKA, D/O.ROCKY PEREIRA, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 3. CELIN PEREIRA, D/O.ROCKY PEREIRA, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 4. MARY AYVIN, D/O.ROCKY PEREIRA, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 5. HERMOIN PEREIRA,D/O.ROCKY PEREIRA, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO. DO. (REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN). ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM FOR R1 TO R5. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.No.169/07 IN MAT.A.30/07 //DISMISSED// SD/ R.BASANT, JUDGE. 2.7.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.30 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant whose petition for declaration of status as wife of the first respondent, for maintenance, for damages and for a prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents from throwing her out of possession was returned by the Family Court after holding that there is no valid marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent. 2. The petition was filed by the petitioner and interim reliefs were claimed. The dispute was raised about maintainability of the petition before the Family Court. It was contended that there was no valid marriage between the appellant and the first respondent and that at any rate the alleged claim of the appellant/petitioner cannot justify her assertion that she is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent. 3. A preliminary issue was raised about the Mat.A.No.30/07 -2- maintainability of the petition. While the interim application came up for consideration, the court held that the alleged marriage between the petitioner-admittedly a Hindu and the first respondent- admittedly a Christian cannot be reckoned as a valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act as claimed by the appellant/petitioner. It is accordingly that the court took the view that in the absence of a matrimonial relationship, the proceedings is not maintainable under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. Accordingly, the petition was returned for presentation before the appropriate court. 4. It is significant to note that even according to the appellant/petitioner, she is a Hindu and the first respondent is a Christian. How did they get married? She asserts that they got marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the marriage was performed/solemnised in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu rites. In the light of the decision in Vijayakumari v. Devabalan (2003(3) KLT 695), it is too late in the day for the appellant/petitioner to contend that a valid matrimony exists between her and the first respondent on the Mat.A.No.30/07 -3- basis of the alleged performance of Hindu religious rites. That position has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest decision reported in Parvinderjit Singh v. State of Chandigarh (2009(1) KLT SN 1(Case No.1)SC). 5. It follows that without any dispute, the appellant cannot succeed in her claim of valid matrimony between her and the first respondent. In the absence of such a matrimonial relationship, proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Family Court would be not maintainable clearly. The Family Court, according to us, committed no error in returning the claim for presentation before the appropriate court. The impugned order does not, in these circumstances, warrant any interference. The appeal must and does hence fail. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the interim orders passed by this Court as per order dated 22.1.2007 and extended from time to time may be permitted to remain in force until the petitioner gets time to re-present the proceedings before the appropriate court. The prayer is stoutly opposed by the first respondent. In the nature and circumstances of the Mat.A.No.30/07 -4- case, we direct that notwithstanding the disposal of this appeal today, the interim orders issued on 22.1.2007 and extended from time to time shall continue to remain in force till 13.7.2009. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above observations/ directions. We direct the parties to suffer their respective costs. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn