Unit 3 of Family Law I (Muslim, Parsi and Christian Law; Indian Succession Act) (syllabus: Module 3 — Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936; Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872; Divorce Act 1869). Below: what the unit covers, the provisions it turns on, and the cases an examiner expects you to name.
What this unit covers
- A Frenchwoman is admitted to the Zoroastrian faith. Is she a Parsi for the purposes of the Parsi Act?
- Two Parsis marry in a civil ceremony abroad, without the Ashirvad. Are they married?
- A Roman Catholic marriage is solemnised by an ordained priest without the consent required for a minor. Which Part of the Christian Marriage Act governs?
- Where do the prohibited degrees for a Christian marriage come from, if the Act does not say?
- A Christian couple want a consent divorce. What must they show, and why was nothing available before 2001?
- Why did a Christian wife once have to prove adultery plus something else, and what ended that?
Treat that list as a self-test: recite each topic's rule from memory before you open its cases.
Provisions
- Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936, s. s. 2
- Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936, s. s. 3, with ss. 4, 5 and 52(2)
- Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872, s. ss. 4 and 5, with ss. 19 and 77
- Divorce Act 1869, s. s. 19, read with s. 88 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872
- Divorce Act 1869, s. s. 10A
- Divorce Act 1869, s. s. 10, as substituted by the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act 2001
Leading cases
- Sir Dinshaw Manockji Petit v Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy
- Lakshmi Sanyal v Sachit Kumar Dhar
- Reynold Rajamani v Union of India
- Pragati Varghese v Cyril George Varghese
Full case summaries
- Sir Dinshaw Manockji Petit v Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy (Bombay High Court, 1908) — a Zoroastrian need not be a Parsi
- Lakshmi Sanyal v Sachit Kumar Dhar (Supreme Court, 1972) — the Parts of the Christian Marriage Act are self-contained, and Canon Law supplies the prohibited degrees
- Reynold Rajamani v Union of India (Supreme Court, 1982) — no divorce by mutual consent under the Divorce Act, and no importing English law
- Pragati Varghese v Cyril George Varghese (Bombay High Court, Full Bench, 1997) — the unequal grounds in s. 10 struck down