8 (@) on paying to the other party an indemnity equal to the inount of wages which would otherwise have been cared byte lbowter durag such pezod of ote ss might {7m To he dae of such termination ofthe edtract fo the expury of the period of nouice, asthe case ay (©) in the event of any wilful breach by the other party or any conditon in the contract or aay. provision’ of this ‘applicable to such contract ‘Thus, even if the defendants had committed a breach of contract, which the court found otherwise, the damages which might be awarded would be month's wages. ‘may terminate the contract of service of lata ee tmiscondee” ‘The court was of the opinion that had the defendants failed to serve a one month's notice on the paint when the Inners contract of service was terminated, ‘otice “on grounds of such labourer's E e by Elyas Majeed & Co.; Jackson & RATHEE v. SHANMUGAM [0.C3. (Wan Suleiman FJ, January 15, 1981] poh — Petition for Divorce No. 42 of 1979] Fantly Law — Petition for dvoce — Nallity — Wi reel connate marge © Real to poceed wie @) Kaur v. Singh [1972] 1 Al @) Jodia v. Jodla [1960] 1 AMER. 625, @) Tan Siew.Choon ¥. Tan Kei H PETITION FOR DIVORCE. U. Harcharan Singh for the petitioner. Respondent not appearing. Cur. Ady. Vult. Wan Suleiman F.J.: This is a petition by Rathee 1 d/o Mutha under section 14 of the Divoree Act, 1952 for a declaration that her marriage to the respondent s/o Munusamy be declared null and void. ‘The petition was uncontested. The parties, according to the petitioner had under. gone a ceremony of marriage at the Civil of ‘Marriages, Ipob on Ne 6, 1976, It bad Previously agreed by the partics that cobabitation was '"en Sie FO) fisei] A clear from the testimony of the petitioner that she would agree to consummate only after the Hindu Religious ceremony. Can it rightly be said that the respondent had wilfully refused to consummate so as to entitle the wife to relief under the Divorce Act? Petitioner called as an expert witness on Hindu Law a Hindu priest Hemraj Shashtri s/o Ramachandra ype has oficated as such in the Lakshmi Narayan remple in Jumpur, a person possessed of im- academic qualifications whose evidence on the law particularly those pertaining i would unhestatingly accept. According to this witness the civil ceremony (at the Civil Marriage Registry), in the eyes of Hinduism, does not constitute a valid marriage. Unless this couple, who profess to be Hindus go through the religious rites, they may not live to- gether as husband and wife under the religious law. ‘Mr. Harcharan Singh for the petitioner submitted that the Civil Ordinance, 1952 in no way prevents or probit Parties from going 4 religious ceremony before or after the civil ceremony. The crucial question is whether persistent refusal by FY The facts in Kaur v. Singh are similar to the present one. The parties in that case were Sikhs who were married at a register office, The marriage gel tuts i Be Fe af a8 i ‘occasions and asked him what he proposed to do about the religious ceremony. The husband gave various excuses until eventually he told the wife's brother that he had no intention of ‘The Court of Appeal held that the titled to @ decree of nullity because the ceremony at the register office ‘entirely refused and failed to implement and in failing to do so, he had wilful summate. This decision was cited with approval in Jc Jodla (otherwise Czarnomska)® where the pai Poles. “The busband had petitioned for a ‘that the marriage between himself and the wi ull and void owing to her wilful to mate the marriage. The wile denied wil to consummate the marriage, alleged that she willing to consummate it and prayed nullity ground that it had not been consummated husband’s wilful refusal. The woman was in dan; of having to be sent back to Poland because her was about to expire. In order that she should be able to remain legally in Britain the parties, who were both Catholics, went through a register office ceremony. ‘The parties intended thereafter to be properly marri according to the proper rites of the church. The hus- band according to his evidence was asked several times by the wife to make arrangements for the Catholic ceremony, but failed to do s0. ‘Thereafter the parties drifted apart, the wife refusing to live with the husband until be had the religic trial judge held that the conduct of the wife did not amount to wilful refusal by the wife because she had a legitimate and excuse in the circumstances, Se Thosband’s conduc in falling 1 eeeslis che 2 $83 # and ‘that it was arrange the religious ceremony that resulted in the non consummation of the marriage. ‘My attention was drawn to the Sin of Tan Siew Choon v. Tan Kai Ho wh Singh J. went even further and extended the rule in Jodla v, Jodla to include a case where the ceremony which the spouses had to undergo after the marriage was ceremony in accordance ‘with Chinese custom and not ¢ religious ceremony. 1 do not feel on the facts before me that there is need for me to decide whether the principle enunciated in the two English cases earlier cited could properly be so applied. re _case In view of the special circumstances, I also order- ed that decree nisi be made almolute shortened to one week from the date of the order ie. one week from June 27, 1980. - Solicitors: Lewis && Co. ae