(1981). 1981 November 28 [Α.. Loizou, J.] LOUKIA FARMAKALLIDOU, Petitioner, v. CHARALAMBOS THEOCHARIDES, Respondent. (Matrimonial Petition No. 13/81). Marriage—Civil marriage— Validity—Marriage solemnized in Register Office in London between Greek Cypriots, members of the Greek Orthodox Church resident and domiciled in Cyprus—No religious ceremony in accordance with the rites of Greek Orthodox Church —Though held in accordance with formalities of the lex loci 5 celebrationis said marriage null and void ab initio because it was contracted in disregard of Article 111 of the Constitution. The parties in these proceedings were both nationals of the Republic of Cyprus, Greek Cypriots, members of the Greek Orthodox Church, of the Greek Community of Cyprus and 10 domiciled in Cyprus. They were permanent residents of the Republic and engaged to be married, their engagement having been solemnised in accordance with the rites of the Greek Orthodox Church. In 1978 they went to England for studies where they stayed for about two years. During that time 15 they went through a ceremony of civil marriage at the Register Office at Merylebone High Street in the city of Westminster, in accordance with the formalities of the lex loci celebrationis. Upon a petition for a decree of nullity of the above marriage: Held, that under the Laws and the Constitution and in parti- 20 cular Article 111 thereof, the only way for such Cypriots to be validly married is to go through a religious ceremony in accorddance with the rites of the Greek Orthodox Church; that the marriage ceremony through which the parties went, is void ab initio although it was held in accordance with the formalities 25 of the lex loci celebrationis being a marriage contracted in 724 I C.L.R. 5 Farmakallidoti v. Theocharldes disregard oftheaforesaid ArticleoftheConstitution byCypriots to whom it applies; that this is a matter of personal status which, by virtue of Article 111.1 of the Constitution comes within the exclusive competence of the Church to which the parties belong; and that, consequently, the decree of nullity prayed for must be granted (see, interalia,Platritis v. Plathtis
(1980)1 C.L.R. 324). Decreeof nullity granted. Cases referred to: 10 Metaxas v. Mitas
(1977)I C.L.R. 1; Neophytou v. Neophytou
(1979)I C.L.R. 685; Platritis v. Platritis
(1980)1 C.L.R. 324." Matrimonial Petition. Petition b> the wife for a declaration that the civil ceremony 15 of marriage the parties had gone through at the Register Office of Merylebone in the United Kingdom is null as being contrary to the law and Constitution of Cyprus. M. HadjiChristofis, for the petitioner. A. Pierides, for the respondent. 20 A. Loizou J. gave the following judgment. The petitioner wife hereby prays for a decree of nullity of her marriage to the respondent husband solemnized at the Register Office at Merylebone High Street in the City of Westminster in the UniUd Kingdom, as being contrary to the law and the Constitution 25 of Cyprus. The respondent husband was duly served and was represented by counsel at the trial. The parties in these proceedings are both nationals of the Republic of Cyprus, Greek Cypriots, members of the Greek Orthodox Church, of the Greek Com30 munity of Cyprus and domiciled at the time of their aforesaid marriage in Cyprus. They were both permanent residents of the Republic and they were engaged to be married and their said engagement was solemnized in accordance with the rites of the Greek Orthodox Church on the 16th July, 1978. Shortly 35 afterwards they both went to England for studies where they stayed for about two years. During that time they went through 725 A. Loizou J. FtrnukaliidOQ y. Itmdttrfdes
(1981)the ceremony of marriage in accordance with the formalities of the lex loci celebrationis. Their marriage has not, however, been celebrated in accordance with the rites of the Greek Orthodox Church to which they both belong. Thereareno issues out ofthesaid marriage 5 and upon their return to Cyprustheir engagement was1 dissolved in February 1981. The legal issue raised in these proceedings is the same as the one determined in the cases of Metaxas v. Mitas
(1977)1 C.L.R. p. 1, followed in Neophytouv. Neophytou
(1979)10 1 C.L.R. p. 685; and in Platritisv. Platritis
(1980)1 C.L.R. p. 324, namely that under the Laws and the Constitution and in particular Article 111thereof, the only way for such Cypriots to be validly married is to go through a religious ceremony in accordance with the rites of the Greek Orthodox Church. 15 Theanswertothisquestionhasbeenthatthemarriageceremony through which the parties went, is void ab initio although it washeldinaccordancewiththeformalities ofthelexlocicelebrationir being a marriage contracted in disregard of the aforesaid Article of the Constitution by Cypriots to whom it applies. 20 Thisisa matter of personal status which, byvirtueof Article 111.1of the Constitution comeswifhin theexclusivecompetence of the Church to which the parties belong. Consequently, thedecreeofnullityprayedforisgrantedbutinthecircumstances there will be no order as to cots as none have been claimed. 25 Decree of nullity granted. No order as to costs. 726