Ceremony in a Sikh Temple but No Registration is Not Binding
Landmark ruling on marriage awaited
The Court of Appeal is set to determine whether unions made in temples without a Registrar of Marriages are legal under the law. A British woman is urging the highest court in the land to rule that her union with a Kenyan man she has lived with for 14 years is “not a marriage.”
Ms Papinder Kaur Atwal, through lawyer Ahmed Nassir, urged the appellate judges, Mr Justice Philip Tunoi, Mr Justice Philip Waki and Mr Justice Erustus Githinji to establish that “a ceremony conducted in a Sikh temple in 1995 between her and Mr Manjit Singh Amrit is not a binding legal marriage.”
Pending determination of the case, the judges have blocked Mr Amrit from evicting Ms Atwal from the matrimonial home.
Bigamy
“This court restrains Mr Amrit, his agents, servants, employees, companies and associates from evicting the applicant from the matrimonial home she occupies.”
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/27043-ceremony-sikh-temple-but-no-registration.htmlReference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=27043
The judges gave the order after submissions urging them to quash a judgment by High Court judge Mr Justice David Onyancha who found Ms Atwal “guilty of bigamy.”
Justice Onyancha ruled on July 3 that Ms Atwal had contracted an earlier marriage on January 4, 1986 with Mr Intermit Singh Purewal.
Ms Atwal admits she was forcefully married off to Mr Purewal by her parents at the age of 17 at the Registrar’s Office in Coventry, in the United Kingdom. But the marriage was “not consummated” as she fled to her parents’ home the same day, the court heard.
Nullified
Justice Onyancha nullified the marriage between Mr Amrit and Ms Atwal solemnised in a Sikh temple in London on September 25, 1995. He also gave Mr Amrit custody of their only son.
The judgment was criticised by Mr Nassir, who said that the judge erred in saying that there was a “second marriage” between Ms Atwal and Mr Amrit.
Mr Nassir said that the ceremony conducted at the Sikh temple could not be described as a marriage because it was not presided over by a Registrar of Marriages as stipulated by British law.
However, lawyer Ochieng’ Oduol defended the judgment, saying that Ms Atwal admitted that she did get married at the age of 17. A ruling whether or not on there were two marriages will be made on November 3.
Our Donation Goal
: Why Donate? : Donate Today! : Donate Anonymously (ਗੁਪਤ) : Our Family of Supporters 
.jpg)
Linear Mode
