C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 11.12.2025

Pronounced on: 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

C.M.A.Nos. 2459 & 2460 of 2024 and

C.M.P. Nos.19545 and19551 of 2024

A. Anu Soundarya …Appellant in both the appeals

Vs.

C. Tamilselvan …Respondent in both the appeals

Prayer in C.M.A. No.2459 of 2024: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed

under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, against the common

judgment and decree order dated 10.04.2024 made in I.D.O.P. No.1762 of

2022 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.

Prayer in C.M.A. No.2460 of 2024: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed

under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, to set aside the common

judgment and decree order dated 10.04.2024 made in H.M.O.P. No.362 of

2020 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore.

For Appellant : Mr. B. Manoharan

For Respondent : Mr. M. Rajasekhar

1/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

COMMON JUDGME NT

The instant Appeals have been preferred by the appellant/wife against

the common judgment and decree dated 10.04.2024 made in HMOP

No.362/2020 and IDOP 1762/2022 on the file of the Additional Principal

Family Court, Coimbatore, wherein the Family Court, Coimbatore, granted

divorce in favour of the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty.

2. The respondent/husband in this appeal, who married the appellant/

wife on 08.06.2016, filed HMOP No.362/2020 before the Family Court,

Coimbatore, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955, to pass

an order for dissolution of his marriage solemnised with appellant / wife on

08.06.2016 at Sri Venkateswara Thirumana Mandapam, Kondapanaickanpatti,

Salem. The appellant/wife filed IDOP No.1762 of 2022 under Section 32 of

the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family

Court, Coimbatore, by a common Order dated 10.04.2024, allowed HMOP

No.362/2020 dissolving the marriage between the respondent/husband and the

appellant/wife and dismissed IDOP No.1762 of 2022 filed by the

2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

appellant/wife for restitution of conjugal rights. Assailing the said common

order passed by the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, the

appellant/wife has preferred the present appeals before this Court.

3. There is no dispute that the marriage between the appellant and the

respondent took place on 08.06.2016 at Sri Venkateswara Thirumana

Mandapam, Kondapanaickanpatti, Salem. The respondent/husband sought for

the relief of divorce in the Family Court against the appellant on the ground of

cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is the

contention of the appellant/wife, inter alia, that the provisions of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, are not applicable, since the respondent/husband belongs

to Christian religion and the marriage was conducted as per Christian customs

and rituals and therefore, they are not governed by Hindu Law. Her further

contention is that, the materials on record amply prove that the marriage was

solemnised as per Christian rites. She says that the marriage was performed by

one Pastor Masiya Selvakumar, founder of Masiya Ministries and therefore,

the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are not applicable to them and

that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce under the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She has relied upon the marriage invitation which

3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

contains plus symbol and the marriage photo to prove that the marriage was

held in accordance with the Christian rituals.

4. Therefore, in the light of the above, the primary contention of the

appellant/wife in these appeals are that, since the respondent/husband is not a

Hindu and is a Christian by religion, provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955, are not applicable to him and that the petition filed by the

respondent/husband against her in the Family Court for divorce under the said

Act, is not maintainable and in turn the Family Court has no jurisdiction to

pass decree of divorce between the parties under the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955.

5. Mr.B. Manoharan, the learned counsel for the appellant / wife would

submit that the respondent / husband in spite of conferment of Schedule Caste

Communal status, who is a Christian by religion, claims to be a Hindu for the

purpose of employment would go against the very object of reservation and

would amount to fraud on the constitution. His further contention is that, the

'marriage' dated 08.06.2016 between the parties is not a 'Hindu marriage'

having regard to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. To support his

4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

contentions, he relied on the following decisions:

1.2024 SCC OnLine SC 754 (Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar

Chanchal)

2.2024 SCC OnLine SC 3470 (C. Selvarani vs. Special Secretary cum

District Collector and others).

Hence, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not applicable to the

facts and circumstances of the present case, which warrants interference by

this Court.

6. Whereas, the contention of the respondent / husband is that the

marriage was solemnised on 08.06.2016 in accordance with the ceremonies

and rituals of Hindu Religion and in fact the appellant / wife has previously

filed HMOP 1236/2016 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She had also filed a petition under Section 24 of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in I.A. No.324/2017 in HMOP No.1236/2016 for

interim maintenance claiming to be Hindu by religion, in which interim

maintenance was also granted and the same is received by her. Subsequently,

she had withdrawn HMOP No.1236/2016 and had filed IDOP No.1762 of

2022 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of Indian Divorce Act,

5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

1869, by mentioning that both of them belong to Christian religion and that the

marriage was solemnised in accordance with the rituals of Christian religion,

for the first time. Even in the counter filed by the appellant / wife in HMOP

362/2020, there is no whisper as to the parties belonging to Christian religion

and the marriage was solemnised as per Christian rituals. He had also

produced his community certificate before the Family Court, marked as

Ex.P14, in which it is mentioned that he belongs to Adi Dravidar Community.

His further contention is that, the marriage was not conducted as per Christian

religion and the Pastor had attended the marriage only to bless them, who also

presented a Bible book.

7. Mr.M. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent / husband

would submit that, the learned Family Court Judge, after appreciating the

materials on record, rightly granted the decree of divorce, which warrants any

interference by this Court.

8. We have heard the arguments advanced by the respective counsel for

the parties at length and perused the records.

6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

9. At the outset, marriage as an institution forms a major part of the

social fabric of the society. Marriage as it exist today is not only the union of

a man and a woman but a seed from which numerous rights stem out such as

conjugal rights, maintenance rights, successions rights, etc. If a marriage is

held to be invalid or void, then neither of the parties is entitled to any of such

rights. Therefore, the validity of a marriage is of immense importance and this

gives rise to the important issue of the legal precautions one should take

before solemnisation. The problem is not in the performance of marriage but

in its legal standing when the validity of the marriage is called into question

later.

10. Marriage is governed by various personal laws such as the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, etc. An

individual has option to either marry under their personal Law or to marry

under the Civil Law, i,e., the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Marriage acquires

validity from the legal provisions of law under which the marriage has been

performed. For instance, if both the parties are Hindus and have performed a

marriage under the Hindu Law, it is to be determined whether the legal

7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

requirements under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, have been fulfilled. If the

necessary requirements are not fulfilled, then the marriage is held to be void

and consequently, has no legal standing.

11. Whereas, the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, provides for

marriage between persons one or both of whom is a Christian. Section 4 of the

said Act provides that such a marriage has to be solemnised in accordance

with provisions of that Act and Section 5 names the person by whom the

marriage may be solemnised, which includes any person who has received

episcopal ordination, clergymen of the Church of Scotland or by any member

of religion licensed under this Act to solemnise marriages, by or in the

presence of Marriage Registrar appointed under this Act by any person

licensed under this Act to grant a certificate of marriage between a Hindu and

a Christian. Section 6 to 9 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, deals with

grant of licenses to solemnise marriages including Marriage Register. Section

10 and 11 stipulates the time and place at which the marriage may be

solemnised. Part III of this Act deals with marriages solemnised by the

Minister of Religion licensed under this Act. Similarly, Part IV of this Act

provides for registration of marriages solemnised by the Ministers of Religion.

8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

Part V deals with marriage solemnised by or in the presence of a Marriage

Registrar. Part VI deals with every marriage solemnised between Indian

Christian.

12. Therefore, to come under the purview of the Christian Marriage Act,

1872, it must be first established that the parties belong to Christian religion.

To be a Christian, the core 'proofs' involve faith in Jesus Christ and living a

life demonstrating that faith through love for God and others, obedience,

spiritual growth, with public declarations like baptism often marking the

commitment, though true assurance comes from an inner conviction and

changed life, rather than proving it to others. In essence, while specific actions

like baptism are important, the essence of being a Christian is a transformed

heart that trusts Jesus, evidenced by a life reflecting love and obedience, which

provides assurance to the believer.

13. In the present case, the appellant/wife has relied upon Ex.R1

marriage invitation and Ex.R10 marriage photo which were taken at the time

of marriage. Her evidence is that, the mother of the respondent/husband is

following Christian religion and that she used to go to Church and apart from

9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

that, his mother has written a book which was published by a Christian Pastor

who conducted their marriage. She would further contend that, at the time of

their marriage, they were wearing Christian religion oriented dresses and it

was conducted as per Christian religion and not as per Hindu religion.

14. However, to prove that a marriage is conducted by Christian rituals,

the primary evidence is the marriage certificate issued by the Church/Officiant

under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, supported by witness

testimonies and photographic evidence. The certificate is issued immediately

after the ceremony by the officiating Minister or Priest who is licensed under

the Act, and is signed by both parties and two credible witnesses. A certified

copy of an entry in the Marriage Register is considered legal evidence that the

marriage was performed according to law. The appellant/wife, though deposed

that she had signed the Marriage Register maintained by Pastor Masiya

Selvakumar prior to the marriage in accordance with Christian religion, the

same was not produced at the time of trial. She herself admitted that no

certificate was obtained from Church with regard to their marriage and there

was no exchange of rings on the date of marriage. In fact, the appellant/wife

initially filed an application in HMOP No. 1236 of 2016 before the Additional

10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

Family Court, Coimbatore, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

for restitution of conjugal rights and also another application under Section 24

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for maintenance. Even in the counter

affidavit filed by the appellant/wife in HMOP No. 362 of 2020, there is no

whisper about her husband belonging to Christian religion. On the other hand,

she had only averred that she has discharged all her marital obligations to her

husband as a true Hindu Woman. For the first time in the additional counter

affidavit, it is stated that the marriage was solemnised as per Christian Rites

and rituals.

15. Therefore, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent

was not solemnised as per the provisions contained under the Indian Christian

Marriage Act, even though the Act recognises the solemnisation of marriage

between a Christian and a person professing any other religion, since none of

the requirements under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872, was fulfilled. Mere

inclination towards Christian Religion by the mother of the

respondent/husband is not sufficient, without fulfilling the above

requirements. Therefore, the provisions contained under the Indian Christian

Marriage Act, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.

11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

16. Now the attention is drawn to the provisions contained under The

Divorce Act, 1869. As per the provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869, the

marriage solemnised between a person who professes Christianity and another

person who profess any other religion is valid. The provisions of this Act

confers jurisdiction upon certain Courts to adjudicate matrimonial dispute with

respect to dissolution, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights,

custody of child, etc. Section 2 of the Act empowers the Court to grant relief

to the husband or wife, one of whom is a Christian. As per Section 2 of the

Act, either the husband or a wife, one of whom is a Christian is entitled to

invoke the provisions contained under this Act for relief. This Act does not

specify that it will only apply to a marriage solemnised in a particular form. If

one of the parties to the lis is a Christian, irrespective of the form of marriage

solemnised, the provisions contained under the Act, will be applicable to them

for resolution of matrimonial dispute. But, in the present case, it is not

established that one of the parties to the lis is a Christian and therefore, the

provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, will not be applicable to them for

resolution of matrimonial dispute.

12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

17. Under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, two types of provisions can

be found.

(i)The parties can get married under the Act, or

(ii)The parties can get their marriage registered under the Act even if the

marriage is solemnised in some other way not provided in the Act.

There are certain requirements and procedures that need to be followed to

perform a marriage under this Act which includes giving notice of the intended

marriage to the Marriage Officer, etc. The parties are free to solemnise their

marriage in any form, but, procedures under the Act must be followed. Even

exchange of garlands along with all the procedures under the Act will lead to a

valid marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. But, it is not the case of

the parties that they got married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

18. Now, the point which emerges for decision in these appeals is

whether provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are applicable to the

marriage between the parties.

13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

19. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, applies only to Hindus, i.e., both

parties need to fall under the definition of 'Hindu' given under Section 2 of the

Act.

20. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, solemnly acknowledges both the

material and spiritual aspect of this event in the married couples life. A special

place is given to rites and ceremonies in the Act. It follows that the critical

conditions for the solemnising of a Hindu marriage should be assiduously,

strictly and religiously followed. This is for the reason that the genesis of a

sacred process cannot a trivial affair. The sincere conduct of and participation

in the customary rites and ceremonies under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, ought to be ensured by all married couples and priest who preside

over the ceremony. But, in the instant case, the above parameters have not

been followed by the parties herein. There are certain conditions for a Hindu

marriage which need to be fulfilled according to Section 5 of the Act. If the

conditions are not fulfilled, the validity of the marriage is affected. Moreover,

the performance of Hindu Marriage is also considered to be a sacred and

divine process. Thus, the performance of ceremonies becomes very important

for the validity of marriage under Hindu Law, as per Section 7 of the Act. The

14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

validity of the Hindu Marriage can be ensured in two ways, i.e., by performing

shastric ceremonies and rites or by performing customary ceremonies

prevalent in the community of either party or both the parties. The important

thing to note here is that, the shastric ceremonies are the customary

ceremonies, whichever is performed, must be prevalent in the caste or

community of either of the parties. Kanya Dhana, Panigrahan, Vivaha Homa,

and Saptapadi are the four main shastric ceremonies. Of these four, Saptapadi

has been given statutory recognition under Section 7 of the Act. Thus, the

performance of these ceremonies and rites become essential for the validity of

the marriage.

21. However, in certain cases, these ceremonial rites may not be

performed and still the marriage can be valid. These are when the customary

practices of either side allow performance of marriage in some other way.

Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, inserted by the Tamil Nadu

Amendment, validates marriages, allowing two Hindus to marry without priest

by just exchanging garlands, tying a mangalsutra, or putting a ring in the

presence of friends/relatives, provided they declare each other as husband/wife

in a language they understand. This provision, applicable mainly in Tamil

15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

Nadu, recognises marriages based on mutual consent and simple ceremonies

overriding traditional religious rites for validity. The purpose is to recognise

marriages based on mutual respect, equality, and dignity, challenging caste

based norms and to allow intercaste marriages to gain momentum, fostering

companionship over traditional customs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in many

cases, has upheld the validity of Section 7A, affirming that such marriages are

legal and binding, even when performed in unconventional settings. In the

present case, the appellant wife failed to establish that the parties belong to

Christian Religion and the requirements under the Indian Christian Marriage

Act was fulfilled. Moreover, she herself admitted that she had performed her

duties as a true Hindu wife, which shows that they were living only as Hindu

couple. Hence, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is applicable

to the marriage between the parties.

22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present Civil Miscellaneous

Appeals are devoid of merits and are dismissed.

16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

23. In the result, the order, dated 10.04.2024, passed by the Family

Court in HMOP No.362 of 2020 and IDOP No.1762 of 2022 on the file of the

Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, is upheld. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

[C.V.K., J] [K.G.T., J]

09.01.2026

bga

Internet:Yes/No

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

To

1. Additional Principal Judge,

Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore

2. The Section Officer,

VR Section,

High Court, Madras.

17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.2459 & 2460 of 2024

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

and

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

bga

Pre-delivery common Judgment in

C.M.A.Nos. 2459 & 2460 of 2024 and

C.M.P. Nos.19545 and19551 of 2024

09.01.2026

18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis