Queen-empress Vs. Yohan and ors.

Queen-empress vs Yohan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 17, 1892

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/782369

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/782369
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Parker, J.
Decided On: Jan 17, 1892
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Christian Marriage Act - Act XV 1872, Section 68--Solemnization of marriage under Hindu rites between a Native Christian and a Hindu by a person not authorized, to perform marriages under Section 5 of the Act. -

Key legal issue: Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Yohan and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: (1894)ILR17Mad391

Excerpt

christian marriage act - act xv 1872, section 68--solemnization of marriage under hindu rites between a native christian and a hindu by a person not authorized, to perform marriages under section 5 of the act. - 1. we cannot agree with the view taken by the sessions judge. the preamble and sections 4, 5 and 68 of the present act xv of 1872 are almost identical with the preamble and sections 4, 5 and 56 of act v of 1865.2. section 68, as amended by section 6, act ii of 1891, makes punishable the solemnization of a marriage between persons of whom one is a christian, unless the person solemnizing such marriage has been authorized for that purpose under section 5. it is conceded that the third accused was not authorized under section 5, and hence the case is exactly similar to that in proceedings of the madras high court, dated 21st march, 1871 6 m.h.c.r app. 20 and the accused are, prima facie, liable to punishment.3. we are told that this application has been made by government merely to obtain an au s not pressed for, having regard to the length of time which has elapsed.4. we, therefore, do not think it necessary to pass any further order.

Full Judgment

1. We cannot agree with the view taken by the Sessions Judge. The preamble and Sections 4, 5 and 68 of the present Act XV of 1872 are almost identical with the preamble and Sections 4, 5 and 56 of Act V of 1865.

2. Section 68, as amended by Section 6, Act II of 1891, makes punishable the solemnization of a marriage between persons of whom one is a Christian, unless the person solemnizing such marriage has been authorized for that purpose under Section 5. It is conceded that the third accused was not authorized under Section 5, and hence the case is exactly similar to that in Proceedings of the Madras High Court, dated 21st March, 1871 6 M.H.C.R App. 20 and the accused are, prima facie, liable to punishment.

3. We are told that this application has been made by Government merely to obtain an au s not pressed for, having regard to the length of time which has elapsed.

4. We, therefore, do not think it necessary to pass any further order.

Same Parties Queen-empress vs Yohan and ors. Same Subject Family Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Parker, J.

Family