AMITY UNIVERSITY RAJASTHAN

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

ASSIGNMENT
TOPIC:
VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE IN PRIVATE
INTERNATIONAL LAW

SUBMITTED BY- SUBMITTED TO-

ADNAAN BELIM DR. GOVIND SINGH RAJPAL
BCOM. LLB. (H)
10TH SEMESTER
INTRODUCTION
Despite the changes in the society in recent decades, there remains much truth in the Lord Westbury’s
dictum in Shaw v. Gould1 “Marriage is the very foundation of the civil society, and no part of the laws
and institutions of a country can be of more vital importance to its subject than those which regulate
the manner and condition of forming, and if necessary of dissolving, the marriage contract.” In
English law, a marriage though a contract, is a contract sui generis.
Each legal system determines the attributes of a marriage; at Common Law in England, it is in essence
a consensual union of a man and a woman. A marriage was a voluntary union for life of one man with
one woman to the exclusion of others.2 This decision was the foundation of the rule that polygamous
marriages were not recognized in England, but the situation has been changed and such marriages are
now recognized in England.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law has drafted the Hague Convention on the
Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages 1978. Few Common Law States have
adopted it, Australia being the only exception, having amended the (Australian) Marriage Act 1961,
in 1985 to give statutory force of convention relating to the recognition of marriage. The Law
commission in the United Kingdom recommended against its adoption. Indian has not adopted it. The
convention thus has little direct usefulness, some of its provisions are being briefly indicated, however
to show what can be called the international consensus of opinion on the subject.
A contract to marriage differs fundamentally from a commercial contract,3 since it creates a status that
affects the parties themselves and the society to which they belong. It is sui generis. It is fulfilled on
the solemnization of the marriage ceremony, and thereafter there is a change in the law that governs
the relationship between the parties. As far as matrimonial causes are concerned, they are now
generally taken to include petition for divorce, nullity of marriage, judicial separation and presumption
of death and dissolution of marriage as well as similar foreign proceedings which may fall recognition
here.

MEANING OF MARRIAGE
Marriage is a contract by which a man and a woman express their consent to create the relationship of
husband and wife. This contract, however, differs fundamentally from a commercial contract in the
following ways:

1
(1868) L.R, 3 H.L, 55 at 82
2
Hyde v. Hyde, (1866) LR 1 P & D 130.
3
Under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1970, s. 1, an agreement to marry does not have effect as a contract.
 • As a general rule, it can only be concluded by a formal public act.
• It can only be dissolved by a formal public act.
• More importantly, it creates a status which is taken into account in relation to, for example,
succession, tax, legitimacy of children, and to some extent in relation to immigration laws.4
In English law, a marriage though a contract, is a sui generis. Each legal system determines the
attributes of a marriage, at Common Law in England; it is in essence a consensual union of a man and
woman. In a celebrated (or notorious) case in 1866, Hyde v. Hyde5, it was held that a marriage was
voluntary union for life of one man with one woman to exclusion of others. This decision was the
foundation of the rule that polygamous marriages were not recognized in England.6 Even when
divorces became easier, the concept was maintained, as the dissolubility of a marriage did not affect
its legal character.7 This was also the position in Australia, and Canada.8 In India, among Hindu
marriage has always been regarded as sacrament, whilst in Mohomedan Law, it is a contract.
The formal requirement of the marriage will be governed by the law of the country where the marriage
is celebrated. A marriage can be celebrated if the parties meet the substantive requirement of the
domestic law of the country where the marriage is celebrated, and one of the parties is a national of
that state, or habitually resides there; and each party satisfies the substantive requirements of the law
applicable to the parties in accordance with the conflict of law rules of the place where the marriage is
celebrated.9

FORMAL VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE

The term ‘formalities’ includes such questions such as whether a civil ceremony, or any ceremony at
all is required, the number of witnesses necessary, the permitted hours during which the marriage can
be celebrated, whether publication of marriage is necessary, and so on.15 Now as a general principle,
the formal validity of a marriage is determined under the municipal lex loci celebrationis on the date
of the ceremony (the principle of renvoi does not apply unless it will refer to a law that will validate
the marriage), and the lex domicilii of either party will be irrelevant. This rule is simple and easy to
apply. It should be obvious to parties wishing to marry that they should comply with the local

4
Cheshire & North, Private International Law, thirteenth edn, p. 741.
5
(1866) LR 1 P & D 130
6
Today the situation has been changed under this and now they are recognized for many purposes.
7
Nachimson v. Nachimson [1930] P 217 (CA), a marriage in the USSR at a time when a unilateral divorce was available
to either party was recognized as a valid marriage in England.
8
Marriages celebrated according to Chinese, Japanese, Eskimo and Jewish rites were also recognized on proof that such
marriages were monogamous. Castels & Walkers, Canadian Conflict of Laws, sixth edn, para 16.6
9
Art. 3 of the Hague Convention on the Celebration & Recognition of the Validity of Marriages, 1978.
formalities.10 English Private International system, the requirement that a marriage may be formally
valid by the principle of lex loci celebrationis is imperative, which admits no alternative test. In the
continental Europe, however, the test is facultative: the requirement is that the marriage should be
formally valid either by the lex loci celebrationis or by the personal laws of the parties. Under the
French law a marriage which is solemnized outside France should be formally valid either under the
law of the place where it is celebrated or by the personal law of the parties. The same is the position
under the German Law. Countries like Greece and Malta lay down that compliance with the personal
law is necessary and obligatory, if the parties belong to the Orthodox Church, in the former case, and
to Roman Catholic Church in the latter case. In Poland and Czech Republic, however, if marriage is
formally valid under the personal law of the parties, then the marriage is valid, irrespective of the fact
whether it complies with the lex loci celebrationis.11 In China too, for the substantive conditions of
marriage, the applicable laws relate to the law of the place where the marriage takes place or the
personal law of the parties (or both).12 Likewise in Scotland, a marriage which is solemnized outside
Scotland should be formally valid under the law of the place where it is celebrated. 13 Thus, it means
that if the marriage is formally valid in accordance with the law of the place where it took place then
the marriage would be valid everywhere. If the law of the place where the marriage is solemnized lays
down that a marriage which complies with the requirements of personal law of parties (such is position
under the Italian Law) is valid, then a marriage performed accordingly will be valid.

Position in Common Law Countries

• Position in Australia
a) Marriage by proxy will be recognized as valid if they are valid under the lex loci celebrationis.14
b) Where the marriage is performed without the presence of an ordained priest, it had been held
that the marriage would not be recognized in Australia.15
c) Australian Court also recognize as a valid marriage performed according to religious
ceremonies of the parties even if the formalities prescribed by law of the place where the

10
Nullity (conflict), available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullity(conflict) (last visited on April 20,
2010).
11
Paras Diwan & Peeyushi Diwan, at 266.
12
Wang Hui, A Review of China’s Private International Law During the 30-year Period of Reform and
Opening-Up (May 2009) (ASLI Working Paper Series No. 002).
13
The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission, Private International Law Choice of law rules
in Marriage, Law Com. No. 165 & Scot. Law Com. No. 105, 3 (July 01, 1987).
14
Supra, no. 10
15
Nygh v. Davies, Conflict of Law in Australia, seventh edn, para 24.14
 marriage took place were not complied with in conditions prevailing at the time, whether the
parties were British subject or not.16
• Position in Canada
The formal validity of a marriage is generally determined by the lex loci celebrationis.17 The
lack of parental consent, when required by the lex domicilii is treated in the Canadian Common Law
Province, as in England, as a question of formal validity, and, therefore governed by the law of the
place where the marriage is celebrated.18 If the lex loci recognizes as valid a marriage by cohabitation
and repute, such marriage will be accepted as a valid marriage in Canada.
If a marriage, though invalid by the lex loci when considered, is retrospectively validated in the foreign
country the marriage will recognized as valid in Canada even if , by then, both the parties were
domiciled in Canada.

CAPACITY TO MARRY
Essential validity covers all questions of validity other than formal validity. “Capacity to marry” is a
category within essential validity. Capacity to marry ought strictly to be confined to rules which lay
down that a particular class of person lacks a power to marry which other people possess (for instance,
rule that a person below a certain age may not marry). In practice, however, capacity to marry also
includes cases where the reason for the invalidity, is that such a marriage relationship is objectionable
in the eyes of law (for instance, rules prohibited marriages between relatives of certain degrees).
Capacity to marry does not, however, cover the whole field of essential validity; it does not include
the consent of the parties or the non consummation of the marriage.
There is general agreement that this terminology includes matters of legal capacity such as
consanguinity and affinity, bigamy and lack of age. Consideration is given later to a law to govern
matters of consent and physical incapacity. The fact that capacity as a term encompasses a wide range
of matters does not necessitate the conclusion that all matters of capacity should be subject to the same
choice of law rule- a matter to which we shall return. A further preliminary point which ought to be
borne in mind is that, provided that a person has capacity under the relevant law, the fact that he is, for
example, under age according to English law will not invalidate the marriage in the eyes of English
law as the law of the forum at least if the marriage is not in England.

16
Savenis v. Sevenis, (1950) SASR 309.
17
Castel & Walkers, Canadian Conflict of Laws, sixth edn, para 16.2; Forbes v. Forbes (1912) 3 DLR 324.
18
Hunt v. Hunt 14 DLR (2d) 243
There are two main views as to the law which should govern capacity to marry- the dual domicile
doctrine, and the intended matrimonial home doctrine.

CONSENT OF PARTIES
The rule states that, no marriage is valid if by the law of either parties domicile he or she does not
consent to marry the other‟.19 There appears to be no specific authority in England on the subject
though observation by the Court of Appeal, in a case where the issue was whether a marriage by proxy
was valid, observed that the mode of giving consent, as opposed to the fact of consent would be
governed by the lex loci celebrationis. It was also held that the consent is governed by the law of the
domicile of the parties.20 The question that arises is as to which lex domicilii has to be considered, of
both parties, or of the party whose consent is in question. The consensus seems to be, though there is
no decision on the subject, that is should be domiciled of the person who is alleged to have lacked
consent. In Davison v. Sweeney,21 it was held that alleged absence of consent was a matter for a
domicile of the party concerned.
In Canada, consent is regarded as a part of essential validity of a marriage and depends on the ante
nuptial domicile of the parties.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
Matrimonial causes are now generally taken to include petition for divorce, nullity of marriage, judicial
separation and presumption of death and dissolution of marriage as well as similar foreign proceedings
which may fall recognition here. The rules relating to the jurisdiction of the courts and to the
recognition of the foreign divorces, annulments and judicial separations are, in essence, the same for
all three matrimonial causes, and therefore be examined together, identifying where appropriate any
rule which do not apply to all three. It will be seen that the one major area of difference remaining
concerns the determination of the law to be applied by the English Court. It is also necessary to discuss
a further preliminary issue, namely whether an English court will assume jurisdiction to grant
matrimonial relief in the case of an actually or potential polygamous marriage.

19
Re Howe v. Louis (1970) 14 DLR (3d) 49, cited in Dicey & Morris, Conflict of Law, thirteenth edn para 14-010.
20
Way v. Way [1949] All ER 959.
21
(2005) 255 D.L.R. (4th) 757 (BC)
 (A) Polygamous Marriages and Matrimonial Relief
1) At Common Law
Until 1972, the rule of English Law was that the parties to a polygamous marriage were “not entitled
to the remedies, the adjudication, or relief of the matrimonial law of England.”22 It meant that, in the
case of a polygamous marriage, the court would grant a divorce, a decree of nullity even where the
petitioner claimed lack of capacity to enter a polygamous marriage,23 or a decree of judicial separation.
It can be realized, however, that fundamental reform was called for a view of the number of immigrants
from jurisdictional where they had contracted valid marriages in polygamous form. A substantial
number of people, permanently residents through not domiciled in England, were denied all
matrimonial relief.
2) Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973
The entire above rule have been changed now and Section 4724 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973
makes it available to the parties to an actually polygamous marriage a wide range of matrimonial
relief,25 namely decrees of divorce, nullity, judicial separation, presumption of death and dissolution
of marriage, order for financial provisions in the cases of neglect to maintain, variations of maintenance
agreement, orders for financial relief or relating to children which are ancillary to any of the preceding
decree26 or order, order made under Part I of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Court Act
1978, order for financial relief after a foreign divorce, annulment or legal separation27 and any
declaration under Part III of the Family Law Act 1986 involving a determination as to validity of a
marriage. Indeed, it has been said that the effect of section 47 of the 1973 Act is to abolish entirely the
old rule, so that all forms of relief which can be classed as matrimonial are now available in the case
of polygamous marriages.
3) Remaining Problems
Where the party to an actually polygamous marriage brings proceeding for divorce alleged
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage,28difficulties may arise over adultery, unreasonable behavior
or desertion as proof of breakdown.29 If a wife alleges that her husband has committed adultery with

22
Supra no. 5.
23
Risk v. Risk [1950] 2 All ER 973.
24
A Court in England and Wales shall not be precluded from granting matrimonial relief or making a declaration
concerning the validity of a marriage by reason only that either party to the marriage is, or has during the substance of the
marriage been, married to more than one person.
25
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 47(2).
26
Chaudhary v. Chaudhary, [1976] Fam 148 at 151.
27
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act, 1984, Schedule 1 para 15. 39Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 47(3).
28
Ibid, Section 1.
29
Ibid, Section 1(2) (a), (b) and (c). These grounds for divorce will no longer be relevant if and when Part II of the Family
Law Act, 1996 is bought into force.
another wife, such a claim will usually fail because, “it is an essential element of adultery that
intercourse has taken place outside the marriage relationship i.e. between persons not married to each
other. This being so, intercourse with a wife could not be adultery.”30 In terms of policy this conclusion
seems right if both the marriages were entered into in polygamous form. It has been said31 that in such
a case there has been no breach of the obligation of fidelity imposed by the law governing the marriage,
followed by a valid polygamous one. If a wife divorces petition is based on the husband’s unreasonable
behavior,32 the court will have to examine all the circumstances of the marriage33 and it been also held
that the taking by the husband of a second wife is unreasonable behavior towards the first.34
Similarly, if a husband’s petition is based on desertion by the first wife, the fact that he was the validity
married a second wife has been held to give the first wife reasonable ground for leaving him.35
(B) Jurisdiction
• Divorce and Judicial Separation
It was led by the Privy Council in Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier, that „according to international law,
the domicile for the time being of the married pair affords the only jurisdiction and only true test of
jurisdiction to dissolve their marriage.The essence of the rule in this case was that there should be only
one test of jurisdiction and only one court capable of dissolving a particular marriage, the court of the
parties domicile. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, provided that the Court should have jurisdiction
to grant a divorce, in proceeding by a wife, notwithstanding that the husband was not domiciled in
England, if she had been deserted by her husband, or the husband had been deported from United
Kingdom, and the husband was immediately before the desertion or deportion domiciled in England.36
These enactments were confined to proceeding by a wife. They did not extend to cross-petition by a
respondent husband.37 The exercise of the English Courts jurisdiction in proceeding for divorce is
subject to rules requiring or enabling the court to stay those proceedings in certain circumstances.38
• Nullity of marriage
Before 1974 the jurisdiction of the British Court to entertain petitions for the nullity of marriages was
one of the most vexed and difficult question in the whole of the English conflict of laws. An enormous
simplification of the law was effected by section 5(3) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceeding

30
Onobrauche v. Onobrauche (1978) 8 Fam Law 107
31
Clive, The Law of Husband and Wife in Scotland, 4th edn. (1997), pp 109-110
32
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Section 1 (2) (b)
33
Gollins v. Gollins [1964] AC 644.
34
Poon v Tan (1973) 4 Family Law 161.
35
Quoraishi v. Quoraishi [1985] FLR 780 CA
36
Section 13, but now repealed.
37
Levett v. Levett and Smith [1957] P. 156
38
Family Proceeding Rules, 1991
Act 1973. This provides that the English Court have such jurisdiction to entertain such petition if (and,
subject to section 5(5), on if) either party to the marriage:
(a) Is domiciled in England on the date when the proceedings are begun
(b) Was habitually resident in England throughout the period of one year ending with the date,
or
(c) Dies before that date and either was at death domiciled in England, had been habitually
resident in England throughout the period of one year ending with the date of the death.
Without this insignificant exception, the bases for jurisdiction in nullity of marriage are now the same
as in divorce and judicial separation. A voidable marriage no longer confers the husbands domicile at
the date of the marriage.39 The bases for jurisdiction are now same whether the marriage is alleged to
be void or voidable. It is therefore no longer necessary to consult foreign law i.e. the law of the
husbands domicile at the date of the marriage.40
Choice of Law
A. Divorce
The question of choice of law has never been prominent in the English rules of the conflict of laws
relating to divorce, which has always been treated as primarily a jurisdictional question. English Court
when deciding whether to recognize foreign divorce have never examined the ground on which the
decree was granted in order to hand, when English Court have themselves assumed jurisdiction, they
have never applied any other law than that of England. In English law the only possible alternative to
the lex fori would be the law of the domicile. No difference between them could exist before 1938,
because English courts did not exercise jurisdiction unless the parties were domiciled in England. The
Court of Appeal determined the question of divorce by the law which would be applicable thereto if
both the parties were domiciled in England at the time of the proceeding, i.e. English law.41
The rule may be justified on the ground that it would be highly inconvenient and undesirable from the
practical point of view to apply foreign law in English divorce suit. Again, to require English Court to
dissolve marriage an exotic foreign ground would be distasteful to judge and unacceptable to public
opinion.
(C) Judicial Separation
Unlike divorce a vinculo matrimonii, judicial separation was a remedy granted by the ecclesiastical
court before 1858. There it was called divorce a mensa et thoro (divorce from bed and board). The
principle effect of a decree was (and is) entitle the petitioner to live a apart from the respondent, but

39
Section 1 of Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973.
40
De Reneville v. De Reneville, [1948] P. 100.
41
Zenelli v. Zenelli (1948) 64 T.L.R 556.
not to dissolve their marriage nor enable either party to remarry. The remedy is sought chiefly by
person who have religious scruples about divorce. It has never been doubted that the English court will
apply English domestic law and no other, even if the parties are domiciled abroad.
(D) Nullity of Marriage42
A nullity decree is concern with the validity of the creation of a marriage, unlike divorce which
dissolves a marriage which is admittedly validly created. This means that the choice of law issues in
nullity is essentially the same as those already examined in context of marriage. The reason why the
choice of law for nullity is more difficult area than divorce is that the effect of annulment varies
according to the particular ground in issue and they vary in relation to the same ground even within
United Kingdom. Some defect avoids a marriage ab initio, i.e. render it void, whilst other merely
renders it voidable. If one party is below minimum age of marriage or is already married, English Law
regards the marriage as void.43 In Scotland, on the other hand, lack of consent also renders the marriage
void ab initio.44
There are further differences in relation to the effect of an annulment. The annulment of a void
marriage has retrospective effect; it declares the marriage never to have existed. However the position
is different in England in case of a voidable marriage. It has been suggested that, as annulment of a
voidable marriage and divorce decree both only have prospective effect, the law of the forum should
be applied to the former as to the latter.

POSITION IN INDIA
There seems to be only one decision of an Indian court on the subject, where the question did not
directly arise, and it was observed by a learned single judge that formal validity would be governed by
the lex loci celebrationis.45

The Foreign Marriage Act 1969, provides that a marriage performed outside India would be regarded
as valid if it was performed in accordance with the law of the country where the marriage was
performed, thus implying that the test for such validity was the lex loci celebrationis.46

42
Ireland also has decided not to opt on to Rome III: Press Release 10 October 2006,
available at http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Page/GovernmentrejectsEUdivorceproposals.
last visited on 10th August, 2015
43
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 11.
44
Family Law (Scotland) Act, 2006, Section 2 inserting section 20A into the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977.
45
Noor Jehan Begum v. Eugene Tiscenko, AIR 1941 Cal 582.
46
The Foreign Marriage Act 1969 (Act no. 33 of 1969), Section 23
As Indian courts tend to follow the rules of English law on most issues in conflict of laws, it is probable
that Indian courts would hold, as at Common Law in England, that the formal validity of a marriage
would be governed by the lex loci celebrationis.

Case Laws in India

In Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi,47 the Supreme Court of India observed, “In matters of
status or legal capacity of natural persons, matrimonial disputes, custody of children, adoption,
testamentary and interstate succession etc. the problem in this country is complicated by the fact that
there exist different personal laws and no uniform rule can be laid down for all citizens … The law …
tends to be primarily determined and influenced by social, moral or religious considerations, and public
policy plays a special and important role in shaping it.”48

Statutes enacted in India also recognize the principle that questions of capacity are governed by the
law of the domicile. The conditions for a valid marriage are set out in section 5 of the Hindu Marriage
Act 1955, which applies to Hindus domiciled in India, even if they are outside India. This is clear
statutory recognition of the rule that all questions of capacity are governed by the law of a person's
domicile.

In India, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ‘any two Hindus’ can perform their marriage, provided
that the conditions laid down under the Act are fulfilled. The Indian Courts would accord recognition
to such marriages even if one of the parties or both the parties to the marriage have no capacity to enter
into marriage under there ante-nuptial domicile or law of their matrimonial home. This is also true in
case of Muslims, Christians, Parsi or Jew marriages performed in India under the law of there
respective communities. This is because in India, law of marriage is essentially a personal law, in the
sense that the governing law of marriage is not the Indian Law or the state law but the law of the
community to which the parties belong.

In a case of Parwatawwa v. Channawwa,49 where a man domiciled in Hyderabad married a second

wife, who was domiciled in Bombay, at a time when a Hindu could contract a bigamous marriage in
Hyderabad but not in Bombay, it was held that the question related to capacity which was dependent
on the husband's domicile, and as he was not prohibited from contracting a second marriage by the law
of his domicile, the marriage was valid.

47
1991 3 SCC 451, at 458.
48
Sujata Manohar, Inter-personal Laws in India, available at:
http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsil/annual_documents/2003/autumn/houkokuabstr/Panel%20E4%20Manohar%20revised.pdf.
(last visited on August 10 2015).
49
AIR 1966 Mys 100
In the case of Bhagwan Ghamshamdas v Charlotte Zingg,50 a Hindu man, whose marriage had been
dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, married another woman in Sri Lanka within a few
months of the dissolution, it was held that under section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, as it stood
then, a person could not remarry within a year of the dissolution; the man, therefore, lacked a capacity
to marry which was governed by the law of his domicile.

CONCLUSION
A contract to marry fundamentally from a commercial contract, since creates a status that affects both
the parties themselves and the society to which they belong. It is fulfilled on the solemnization of the
marriage ceremony, and therefore there is a change in the law that governed the relationship between
the parties.
There are many different situations in which the existence of a marriage must be established as a
preliminary to legal proceedings. The matter may concern many different parts of the law. Thus, the
institution of matrimonial causes, such as a petitioner for divorce and judicial separation, implies that
the parties are related to each other as husband and wife. Each legal system must determine the
attributes of the consensual union between man and woman, the common factor, in eyes of the English
law, of every marriage, which are necessary to create the relationship of husband and wife. The above
project concludes that the case law just illustrates the incidental question does not attract a mechanical
rule. Therefore each case is decided on its own facts and circumstances.
As far as jurisdiction of English Court is concerned, to entertain proceedings for nullity, if either party
was habitual resident for one year or domiciled in England, or if either of the parties died before that
date and either was at domiciled in England or had been habitually resident foe one year ending with
the date of the death. A nullity decree may declare a marriage either void or voidable.
As in the case of contract, there is proper law of contract, so also in the case of validity of marriage,
there should be a concept of Proper Law of Marriage, under which firstly, the law to be applicable will
be that law which is specified by the parties in the marriage deed or at the time of the registration;
secondly, it should be the law which can be inferred by the conduct of the parties or according to the
particulars filled by the parties during the registration of the marriage; thirdly, since in many countries
the registration of marriages is not compulsory, so many people do not go for registration of there
marriages, in such a case it will be the law with which the parties had the most real and substantial
connection. This may end many of the problems and will also give judiciary wide powers to decide
the matter, on the basis notions of justice which they follow.

50
(1959) ILR 1 Cal 4