1962 Ocl. 6 Dec. 15 NADIA UMBERIO MANIOVANI [ V A S S I I IAIJ1S, J . | NADIA UMBERTO M A N T O V A N I THEN NADIA STAVROU PANTZARI f\'iitiotni\ V. UMBERTO V. MANTOVANI UMBERTO V. M A N T O V A N I Respondent. (Matrimonial I'aition No. 8/62). Matrimonial Causes—Dissolution of marriage—Civil marriage—Parties thereto, a Roman Catholic and a member of the Greek-Orthodox Churchof Cyprus—Civilmarriage valid by being contracted under theMarriage Law, Cap. 279—Notfalling within the exceptions in section34ond36—Jurisdiction—The High Court hasjurisdiction to entertain the petition for dissolution of such marriage—Notwithstanding that a religious ceremony in the Roman CatholicChurch followed the civil marriage—'Articles III and 160 of theConstitution—The CourtsofJusticeLaw, I960, (Lawof the RepublicNo. 14 of I960), section 19(b)—TheCourts of Justice Law, Cap.8, section20(b)—English Lawapplicable—The Courtsof Justice Law, I960, (supra), sections 19(b)and 29
(2)(b)—TheCourts ofJustice Law, Cap.8,sections20(b) and 33
(2). Constitutional Law—ArticlesIII and 160of the Constitution. The parties were married on 22nd September 1954 at the Commissioner's Office Nicosia under the provisions of the Marriage Law, Cap. 279. A religious ceremony in the Roman Catholic Church followed the aforesaid civil marriage. The parties are both Cypriots, domiciled in Cyprus. The husband is a Roman Catholic and the wife amember of the Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus. The wife petitioned to the High Court in its matrimonial jurisdiction for dissolution of the civil marriage on the ground of adultery on the part of the respondent. The Court, assuming jurisdiction and being satisfied that there was no collusion, granted a decree nisi to the petitioner. Held : (I) This Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the present cause. •
(2)Not falling within the exceptions in sections 34 and 36 of the Marriage Law. Cap. 279 in force at the time ot their marriage, the parties were legally entitled to be married at the 336 Commissioner's Office, under the provisions of that Law. A n d having done so, they left the Commissioner's Office, a legally married couple ; each acquiring the status of a married person,
(3)As far as the law is concerned, the subsequent religious ceremony In.the Roman Catholic C h u r c h , did not add anything t o that status ; nor did it, in any way, affect it at all. Same as the non-performance of a religious ceremony in the GreekO r t h o d o x C h u r c h , of which the wife is a member, did not in any way affect t h e legal status acquired by each of t h e parties, after their civil marriage. A n d cannot In any way affect t h e status of t h e i r child.
(4)Prior t o the establishment of the Republic, in August, I960, under its present c o n s t i t u t i o n , the Supreme C o u r t of the Colony of Cyprus w o u l d undoubtedly have Jurisdiction t o entertain a matrimonial cause arising in this marriage, under section 20(b) of the Courts of Justice Law, Cap.8, in force at the time.
(5)This being so, the position is now governed by section 19(
- b)of the present Courts of Justice Law, (Law of the Republic N o . 14 of I960) and the petitioner was entitled t o have recourse t o the Matrimonial Jurisdiction of this C o u r t , in exercise of which, I have already granted to her by the decree made on October 6 t h , the remedy sought by her p e t i t i o n , w i t h costs. (Darmanin v. Darmanin, Herta lasonos v. lasonos, Phidias Christodoulou v. Katerina Christodoulou, followed). Divorce granted. Cases referred to : Cosgrove v. Cosgrove, 1961 C L . R . 221 ; Tyllirou and Tylliros 3 R.S.C.C. 21 ; Darmanin v. Darmanin, r e p o r t e d in this volume at p. 264, ante: Herta lasonosv. lasonos. Matrimonial Petition N o . 14/61 decided on 2.3.62, unreported ; Phidias Christodoulou v. Katenno Chnstoooulou. i r p o i t e d in this volume at p. 68, ante Mutrinmiiinl I V l i i t o i i . P e t i t i o n by w i f e f o r the d i s s o l u t i o n o f her n i a m u g e o n the g r o u n d o f a d u l t e r y . 337 1962 Oct. 6 Dec. 13 NADIA UMBERTO MAKTOVANI V. UMBERTO V. MAtflOVANI J?62 Char,lounnides for the petitioner., Dec. 15 ^^"^ —- Lejkos N. derides for the respondent. NADIA UMBERTO MANTOVANI VASSIHADES, J. : On the 6th of October, last, I gave UMBbRio ν MANTOVANI judgment in this cause granting the petitioner a decree nisi for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent with costs. The reasons for that judgment were to be delivered later, which I now proceed todo. The parties t o this petition were married at theCommis sioner's Office, Nicosia, on the 22nd September, 1954, by a Marriage Officer, under the provisions of the Marriage Law, Cap.279. They are both Cypriots, domiciled in Cyprus and residing within thejurisdiction of this Court. The husband is a Roman Catholic ; thewife a Greek Orthodox. A few hours after their civil marriage in Nicosia, the parties, at the instance of the husband, went through a reli gious ceremony of marriage at the Roman Catholic Church of the Terra Santa, at tarnaca. ^j ι . ...---, The couple made their matrimonial home at Famagusta, ' ' " ' where the respondent-husband works as a branch-office manager of a shipping agency belonging to his family. About a year later, on the 6th September, 1955, the parties had their first child, a son, now living with his mother. According to the evidence of the petitioner-wife, the couple were never really happy. She complains that her husband did not take the proper interest in his family while, on the other hand, he was often interested in cabaret artists and other women. At times, after home quarrels, he would send the petitioner to her parents for "punishment" she said; and on one occasion, about two years ago, he went to live in a hotel for some two months in the same town where the parties had their matrimonial home. In the summer of 1961, while the couple were living together, the wife accidentally received a hotel bill indicating that her husband had spent a night at thehoteltogether with another person. A discussion between them on the subject, resulted in an admission on the part of the husband that he had been, on that occasion, in the company of another woman ; but as at the time, the parties were about to leave for a pleasure trip abroad, the wife condoned the husband's 338 misconduct, and there was one more reconciliation between them. Apparently, it did not last long. 1962 Oct. 6 Dec. 15 in January last, after an incident in a cabaret, the husband left again the matrimonial home, and went to live with his"relations at a neighbouring town, while he still worked at Famagusta. NADIA UMBERTO MANTOVANI As previous interventions on the part of relatives on both sides to help the parties to overcome their difficulties, had proved futile, no attempt was made this time to bring about a reconciliation. To make things worse, the wife came to know that during this period, her husband had shared a bed with another woman for a night in a Limassol hotel. She then consulted a lawyer, and took the present proceedings for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery on the part of the husband. The respondent put in an appearance and filed an answer to the petition through an advocate ; but he did not contest the proceeding, nor did he deny the matrimonial offence alleged against him. At the hearing of the petition the parties were represented by counsel, and were both personally in attendance. The petitioner gave evidence from the box and her advocate called, in addition, one witness to prove his client's case. The evidence was hardly contested and it is clearly sufficient to prove the adultery complained of. 1accept the evidence adduced, and 1 find accordingly. I am, moreover, satisfied of the genuineness of the proceeding, and the absence of collusion between these parties. The main question for decision, in these circumstances, is whether this Court has juiisdiction to cnteilain the petition and to grant the remedy sought. The learned counsel on both sides, submitted that these two questions must be both answered in the affirmative. Mr Joannides on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the parlies-were within their'legal rights-in contracting a civil marriage under the provisions of the Mairinge Law (Cap.279); ami leferred me to section 36 in sitppoii of his contention. As ncilhcr the Roman Catholic nor the Greek-Orthodox Church recognise such civil marriage, counsel further contended, and as the parties do not belong to the same religious 339 V. UMBERTO V. MANTOVAM Vassiliades, J. 1962 Oct. 6 Dec. 15 NADIA UMBERTO MANFDVANI I', UMHURIO V. MANTOVANI Vassiliades, J . group, article 111 ofthe Constitution, which is based on Lhe division ofthe community in religious gioups under the Con stitution, isnot applicable in their case. And this isthe pro per and only Court.to deal-with the>matter,-inits Matrimonial jurisdiction, applying the English Law as provided insection 19(
- b)ofthe Courts ofJustice Law, and section 20 ofLaw 40 οΐ 1953 (Cap.8). Mr. Lefkos derides for therespondent, on the other hand, submitted inhis final address that article 111 applies only to cases where both parties belong to the same religious group, asdefined inparagraph 3ofarticle 2of the Constitu tion. He referred me to Cosgrove v. Cosgrove (Matr. Pet. 10/60 in this Court) ; and toTyl/irouandTy/Iiros (Case 128/61 - inthe Constitutional Court -3,R.S.C.C., 21). He agreed with counsel on the other side, that this is the proper Court to entertain the proceeding under section 19(
- b)ofthe Courts οΐ Justice Law, applying the English lawinthe matter. All the more so, counsel added, asno Ecclesiastical Tribunal in this Country, will recognise the civil marriage subsisting between the parlies ; orentertain a proceeding therein. Iaccept the submission made bylearned counsel on both sides, that this Court has jurisdiction tohear and determine the present cause. "-.·".«" Not falling within the exceptions in sections 34and36 of the Marriage Law (Cap. 279) inforce atthe time oftheir marriage, the parties were legally entitled tobemarried at the Commissioner's Office, under the provisions ofthat Law. And having done so, they left, the Commissioner's Office, a legally married couple ; each acquiring the status of a married person. As far as lhe law was concerned,the subsequent religious ceremony inthe Roman Catholic Church, did not add any thing to that status ; nor did it, inany way, affect itat all. Same asthe non-performance ofa religious·ceremony inthe Greek-Orthodox Church,ofwhich the wife isa member, did not in any way affect the legal status acquired by each ofthe parties, after their civil marriage. And cannot inany way affect the status oftheir child. Prior tothe establishment of the Republic, in August, 1960, under its present constitution,the Supreme Courtof the Colony of Cyprus would undoubtedly have jurisdiction to entertain a matrimonial cause, arising in this marriage,under 340 section 20(
- b)of the Courts of Justice Lav/ (Cap.8) in force at the time. 1962 Oct. 6 Dec. 15 This being so, the position is now governed by section 19(
- b)of the present Courts of Justice Law (14 of I960). And as I said the other day in Darmanin v. Darmanin (Mat. Pet. 13/61): NADU UMBERTO MANTOVANI "Falling, as it does, outside the saving lines of section 19(
- b)the petition remains within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court, in the exercise of the powers which before Independence Day, vested in, and were exercisable by lhe Supreme Court of Cyprus, under the provisions of sections 20(
- b)and 33
(2)of Chapter 8". Following the decisions in Herta lasonos v. lasonos (Matr. Pet. 14/60) ; Phidias Christodoulou v. KaterinaChris todoulou(Matr. Pet. 15/61); and other cases to which Γ need not specifically refer, I hold that the petitioner was entitled to have recourse to the Matrimonial Jurisdiction of this Court, in exercise of which, 1have already granted to her by the decree made on October 6th, the remedy sought by her petition, with costs. Di\orcc grunted. 341 V. UMBERTO V. MANTOVANI Vassiliades, J.