Parwatawwa v. Channawwa on Capacity and Domicile (AIR 1966 Mys 100)

Facts of the Case

The case involves a dispute over property rights, hinging on the validity of a second Hindu marriage celebrated when conflicting state laws were in force.

• Channavva (Plaintiff) claimed to be the second wife of Siddalingiah, having married him in 1951 in the State of Bombay.

• She sought possession of Siddalingiah’s properties as his rightful widow, excluding the defendant (his daughter from the first marriage).

• The Defendant denied the marriage's validity, claiming Channavva was only a concubine.

• The State of Bombay had enacted the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, which declared bigamous marriages void if contracted in Bombay after the Act came into force, or if either party was domiciled in Bombay.

• The District Judge found the marriage valid, holding that the Bombay Act did not apply because Siddalingiah's domicile was in Hyderabad, where polygamy was still permitted for Hindus.

The defendant appealed this decision to the High Court.

Issue

Which jurisdiction's law should govern the capacity for marriage—the law of the place of celebration, the law of the husband's domicile, or the law of the intended matrimonial home—when conflicting laws existed between states within India?

Rule

In conflicts of laws relating to marriage capacity among Hindus (prior to the unified Hindu Marriage Act, 1955), the capacity to contract a polygamous marriage was primarily governed by the ante-nuptial domicile of the husband, and alternatively, by the law of the country of the parties' intended matrimonial home.

Held

The Mysore High Court:

• Distinguished Law of Form vs. Capacity: Recognized the distinction in Private International Law between the law governing the form of marriage (lex loci celebrationis) and the law governing the capacity to marry (law of domicile).

• Domicile in India: Acknowledged that while there is a singular Indian Domicile post-Constitution, the power of state legislatures (under Article 245) to create laws like the Bombay Act means that conflict of laws principles are applicable when state laws governing marriage are at odds.

• Evolution of the Rule (English Law): Traced the evolution of the rule from believing validity was governed by the place of celebration to the modern rule that capacity is governed by the law of domicile of the parties (Brook v. Brook).

  • Cited Dicey's Rule 31 that both parties must have the capacity to marry according to their respective domiciles. If one party's domicile prohibits the marriage, it may be invalid.

• Husband's Domicile as Decisive Factor: Acknowledging the complexities and conflicting decisions in English law when parties have different domiciles, the Court leaned toward the view that the capacity is generally influenced by the husband's domicile.

  • Referenced precedents like Warrender v. Warrender (essentials of marriage governed by the law of the husband’s domicile) and cases endorsing the Intended Matrimonial Home Doctrine (Cheshire's view). [Image illustrating the three competing conflict of laws principles in marriage: Law of Celebration, Law of Domicile, and Law of Matrimonial Home]

• Conclusion on Capacity: Given the sacramental and contractual nature of Hindu marriage, and precedents emphasizing the husband’s law, the Court held that since the Hindu law of Siddalingiah's domicile (Hyderabad) allowed polygamy, the marriage with Channavva must be considered valid.

• Rationale: This principle ensured consistency and fairness, respecting the personal law of the husband and the intended domicile.

The appeal by the defendant was allowed, overturning the property claim of the daughter and establishing the plaintiff's status as a valid widow.