{"id":191729,"date":"1996-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996"},"modified":"2019-01-26T20:25:59","modified_gmt":"2019-01-26T14:55:59","slug":"molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N.P. Singh, S.B. Majumdar<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMOLLY JOSEPH @ NISH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGEORGE SEBASTIAN @ JOY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t18\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nN.P. SINGH, S.B. MAJUMDAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     This appeal  has been  filed on  behalf of the wife for<br \/>\nsetting aside  the judgment  of the  Special  Bench  of\t the<br \/>\nKerala High  Court, directing  the District Judge to conduct<br \/>\nenquiry into  the allegations relating to the subsistence of<br \/>\na former marriage of the appellant and then to pass a decree<br \/>\naccordance with law. A petition was filed by the respondent-<br \/>\nhusband before the District Judge for a declaration that (i)<br \/>\nthe marriage  with the appellant is nullity on the ground he<br \/>\nmarriage between  the appellant\t and one  Prince Joseph\t was<br \/>\nsubsisting on the date the appellant married the respondent;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) the  appellant was\t insane and  continued to be so till<br \/>\nthe date  of marriage. That application was contested by the<br \/>\nappellant saying  that although she had married earlier with<br \/>\naforesaid Prince  Joseph, the  said marriage was annulled by<br \/>\nthe order of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal (Church Court as it<br \/>\nis referred to at times). It was also asserted on her behalf<br \/>\nthat previous  marriage was  known  to\tthe  respondent\t and<br \/>\ninspite of that he agreed to marry the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned  District Judge did not conduct any enquiry<br \/>\nand he\tdeclared the  marriage between the appellant and the<br \/>\nrespondent a nullity merely on basis of the pleadings of the<br \/>\nparties. According to him, as the appellant had admitted the<br \/>\nearlier marriage  and as  there was  no decree\tof any Civil<br \/>\nCourt in  accordance  with  the\t provisions  of\t the  Indian<br \/>\nDivorce Act,  1869 (hereinafter\t referred to as the &#8216;Divorce<br \/>\nAct&#8217;) the  former marriage  continued inspite  of  annulment<br \/>\norder  passed\tby  the\t Ecclesiastical\t Tribunal,  and\t the<br \/>\nmarriage had  to be  declared a\t nullity because  of Section<br \/>\n19(4) of  the Divorce  Act. As\trequired by  Section 20 read<br \/>\nwith Section  17 of  the aforesaid  Act\t the  order  of\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge\twas placed  before a  Bench of\tthree Judges<br \/>\npresided over  by Justice  K.T. Thomas\t(as he then was) for<br \/>\nconfirmation. The High Court held:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Canon  Law  (or  personal\t law  of<br \/>\n     Christians) can have theological or<br \/>\n     acclesiastical implications  to the<br \/>\n     parties. But  after the Divorce Act<br \/>\n     came into\tforce a\t dissolution  or<br \/>\n     annulment\t granted    under   such<br \/>\n     personal law  cannot have any legal<br \/>\n     impact as\tstatute has  provided  a<br \/>\n     different procedure and a different<br \/>\n     code for divorce or annulment.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     This appeal  is against  the aforesaid  judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The preamble of the Divorce Act says:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Whereas it  is expedient\tto amend<br \/>\n     the law  relating to the divorce of<br \/>\n     persons  professing   to  Christian<br \/>\n     religion,\tand   to   confer   upon<br \/>\n     certain  Courts   jurisdiction   in<br \/>\n     matters matrimonial;  it is  hereby<br \/>\n     enacted as follows&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 3(4)  defines &#8216;Court&#8217; to mean the High Court or<br \/>\nthe District Court, as the case may be. Section 4 provides:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     Matrimonial  jurisdiction\tof  High<br \/>\n     Courts to\tbe exercised  subject to<br \/>\n     Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     Exception &#8211;  The  jurisdiction  now<br \/>\n     exercised by  the\tHigh  Courts  in<br \/>\n     respect of divorce a mensa et toro,<br \/>\n     and in  all other causes, suits and<br \/>\n     matters   matrimonial,   shall   be<br \/>\n     exercised by such Courts and by the<br \/>\n     District  Courts\tsubject\t to  the<br \/>\n     provisions in  this Act  contained,<br \/>\n     and not otherwise; except so far as<br \/>\n     relates to the granting of marriage<br \/>\n     licenses, which  may be  granted as<br \/>\n     if this Act had not been passed.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Section 10 enables any husband to present a petition to<br \/>\nthe District  Court or\tto the\tHigh Court, praying that his<br \/>\nmarriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has,<br \/>\nsince the  solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery. A<br \/>\nwife may also present a petition to the District Court or to<br \/>\nthe High  Court for  dissolution  of  the  marriage  on\t the<br \/>\ngrounds mentioned  therein. In\tview  of  Section  17  every<br \/>\ndecree for  dissolution of  marriage made  by  the  District<br \/>\nJudge shall  be subject\t to confirmation  by the High Court.<br \/>\nThe said  Section requires  that cases\tfor confirmation  of<br \/>\ndecree for dissolution of marriage shall be heard by a Bench<br \/>\ncomprising of  three Judges. It also vests power in the High<br \/>\nCourt, if  it thinks necessary, to direct further enquiry or<br \/>\nadditional evidence  to be  taken.  Chapter  IV\t deals\twith<br \/>\nnullity of marriages. In view of Section 18 any husband or a<br \/>\nwife may  present a petition to the District Court or to the<br \/>\nHigh Court  praying that his or her marriage may be declared<br \/>\nnull and  void. Section 19 prescribes the grounds on which a<br \/>\nmarriage can be declared to be nullity. Section 19 provides:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Grounds of  decree &#8211;  Such  decree<br \/>\n     may be made on any of the following<br \/>\n     grounds:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (1)   that\t  the\trespondent   was<br \/>\n     impotent  at   the\t time\tof   the<br \/>\n     marriage and  at the  time\t of  the<br \/>\n     institution of the suit;<br \/>\n     (2) that the parties are within the<br \/>\n     prohibited degrees of consanguinity<br \/>\n     (whether  natural\t or  legal)   or<br \/>\n     affinity;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (3) that either party was a lunatic<br \/>\n     or\t idiot\t at  the   time\t of  the<br \/>\n     marriage;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (4) that the former husband or wife<br \/>\n     of either\tparty was  living at the<br \/>\n     time  of\tthe  marriage,\tand  the<br \/>\n     marriage with  such former\t husband<br \/>\n     or wife was then in force.<br \/>\n     Nothing  in   this\t section   shall<br \/>\n     affect the jurisdiction of the High<br \/>\n     Court to maks decrees of nullity of<br \/>\n     marriage on  the  ground  that  the<br \/>\n     consert   of   either   party   was<br \/>\n     obtained by force or fraud.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Every  decree  of\tnullity\t of  marriage  made  by\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge\tshall be subject to confirmation by the High<br \/>\nCourt because  of Section  20 and  provisions of Section 17,<br \/>\nclauses\t  one, two,  three and four, shall, mutatis mutandis<br \/>\nbe applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From a  bare reference  to the  different provisions of<br \/>\nthe Act\t including preamble  thereof  it  is  apparent\tthat<br \/>\nDivorce Act purports to amend the law relating to divorce of<br \/>\npersons professing the Christian religion and to confer upon<br \/>\ncourts which shall include District Court and the High Court<br \/>\njurisdiction in\t matrimonial matters.  In  this\t background,<br \/>\nunless\tthe  Divorce  Act  recognises  the  jurisdiction  of<br \/>\nEcclesiastical Tribunal\t (sometimes known  as Church  Court)<br \/>\nany order  or decree  passed by such Ecclesiastical Tribunal<br \/>\ncannot be  binding on  the courts which have been recognised<br \/>\nunder the provisions of the Divorce Act to exercise power in<br \/>\nrespect of  granting divorce  and adjudicating in respect of<br \/>\nmatrimonial  matters.\tIt  is\t well  settled\t that\twhen<br \/>\nlegislature enacts a law even in respect of the personal law<br \/>\nof a  group of persons following a particular religion, then<br \/>\nsuch starutory\tprovisions shall  prevail and  override\t any<br \/>\npersonal law,  usage or custom prevailing before coming into<br \/>\nforce of such Act. From the provisions of the Divorce Act it<br \/>\nis clear  and apparent\tthat they  purport to  prescribe not<br \/>\nonly the  grounds which\t a  marriage  can  be  dissolved  or<br \/>\ndeclared to  be nullity,  but also  provided the forum which<br \/>\ncan dissolve  or declare  the marriage\tto  be\tnullity.  As<br \/>\nalready mentioned  above, such\tpower has been vested either<br \/>\nin the\tDistrict Court or the High Court. In this backgroud,<br \/>\nthere  is   no\tscope  for  any\t other\tauthority  including<br \/>\nEcclesiastical Tribunal\t (Church Court) to exercise power in<br \/>\nconnection with matrimonial matters which are covered by the<br \/>\nprovisions of  the Divorce  Act. The  High Court has rightly<br \/>\npointed out  that even\tin cases  where Ecclesiastical Court<br \/>\npurports  to   grant  annulment\t  or  divorce\tthe   Church<br \/>\nauthorities would  still continue  to be under disability to<br \/>\nperform or  solemnize a\t second\t marriage  for\tany  of\t the<br \/>\nparties until  the marriage  is\t dissolved  or\tannulled  in<br \/>\naccordance with the statutory law in force.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned  counsel appearing for the appellant placed<br \/>\nreliance on  the judgment  of this  Court  in  the  case  of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/734017\/\">Lakshmi Sanyal\tv. Sachit  Kumar Dhar,\tAIR<\/a> 1972  SC 2667  =<br \/>\n(1973) 2  SCR 122,  in support\tof his stand that inspite of<br \/>\nthe provisions\tof the Divorce Act and procedures prescribed<br \/>\ntherein for  dissolution of  marriage or  declaration  of  a<br \/>\nmarriage to  be nullity,  Ecclesiastical Tribunal  can\talso<br \/>\ndissolve  a   marriage.\t In   that  case,   this  Court\t was<br \/>\nconsidering whether  a marriage\t could be declared a nullity<br \/>\non the\tground that  the parties  were within the prohibited<br \/>\ndegrees of  consanguinity which\t is a ground for declaring a<br \/>\nmarriage to  be nullity\t under Section\t19(2) of the Divorce<br \/>\nAct. In that connection, it was said:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The second  point relates\t to  the<br \/>\n     effect of\tthe marriage between the<br \/>\n     parties   within\tthe   prohibited<br \/>\n     degree of consanguinity. The Indian<br \/>\n     Divorce Act or the Indian Christian<br \/>\n     Marriage  Act   do\t not   give  any<br \/>\n     definition of  what the  prohibited<br \/>\n     degrees are.  It has  been urged on<br \/>\n     behalf  of\t  the\tappellant   that<br \/>\n     assuming the  Canon Law  had to  be<br \/>\n     looked   at    for\t  finding    the<br \/>\n     prohibited\t degrees   it  has  been<br \/>\n     found that\t the appellant\tand  the<br \/>\n     respondent being  children of  real<br \/>\n     sisters fell  within those degrees.<br \/>\n     Section 19\t of the Divorce Act lays<br \/>\n     down in  categorical terms\t that  a<br \/>\n     marriage may  be declared\tnull and<br \/>\n     void, inter alia, where the parties<br \/>\n     are within the prohibited degree of<br \/>\n     consanguinity.    There\tis    no<br \/>\n     exception contained  in ground No.2<br \/>\n     in the  said  section.  It\t is  not<br \/>\n     open, it has been contended, to the<br \/>\n     courts to travel beyond S.19 or the<br \/>\n     provisions of  the Divorce\t Act  to<br \/>\n     discover whether such an impediment<br \/>\n     which renders the marriage null and<br \/>\n     void ab  initio can be removed by a<br \/>\n     dispensation   granted    by    the<br \/>\n     competent authoriby  of  the  Roman<br \/>\n     Catholic<br \/>\n     Church&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;  The   question  of<br \/>\n     capacity to  marry and  impediments<br \/>\n     in the  way of  merriage would have<br \/>\n     to\t be  resolved  by  referring  to<br \/>\n     their personal  law. That\tfor  the<br \/>\n     purpose of deciding the validiay of<br \/>\n     the marriage,  would be  the law of<br \/>\n     the Roman\tCatholic Church\t namely,<br \/>\n     the Canon law of that Church.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     From the  judgment aforesaid  it is  apparent that this<br \/>\nCourt having  said  that  Section  19(2)  makes\t a  marriage<br \/>\nbetween\t the   parties\twithin\tthe  prohibited\t degrees  of<br \/>\nconsanguinity a\t ground for  declaring the  marriage  to  be<br \/>\nnullity, pointed  out that  the Divorce\t Act does  not\tgive<br \/>\ndefinition as  to what are the prohibited degrees Thereafter<br \/>\nit was\tsaid that  for that limited purpose personal law has<br \/>\nto be  looked  into.  According\t to  us,  on  basis  of\t the<br \/>\naforesaid judgment  of this  Court it  cannot  be  that\t any<br \/>\ndeclaration  of\t  marriage  to\tbe  void  by  Ecclesiastical<br \/>\nTribunal shall\tbe binding on the District Court or the High<br \/>\nCourt. Such  Ecclesiastical Tribunal cannot exercise a power<br \/>\nparallel to  the power\tof the\tDistrict Court\tor the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt which  have been\tvested in the District Court and the<br \/>\nHigh Court  by the provisions of the Divorce Acts Section 18<br \/>\nprovides that  any husband or wife may present a petition to<br \/>\nthe District  Court or to the High Court praying that his or<br \/>\nher marriage  may be  declared null and void. In that event,<br \/>\nit excludes  the jurisdiction  and authority  of  any  other<br \/>\nTribunal or  Court including Ecclesiastical Tribunal (Church<br \/>\nCourt).\n<\/p>\n<p>     As the  District Judge  had disposed of the application<br \/>\nfor  divorce   without\tany  enquiry  into  the\t allegations<br \/>\nrelating to the subsistence of the former marriage, the High<br \/>\nCourt was  justified in remitting the matter to the District<br \/>\nJudge for  fresh decision in accordance with law. We find no<br \/>\nreason to  interfere with  the said  order.  The  appeal  is<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996 Bench: N.P. Singh, S.B. Majumdar PETITIONER: MOLLY JOSEPH @ NISH Vs. RESPONDENT: GEORGE SEBASTIAN @ JOY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/1996 BENCH: N.P. SINGH, S.B. MAJUMDAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R This appeal has been filed [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-26T14:55:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T14:55:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1838,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996\",\"name\":\"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T14:55:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-26T14:55:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T14:55:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996"},"wordCount":1838,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996","name":"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T14:55:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/molly-joseph-nish-vs-george-sebastian-joy-on-18-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Molly Joseph @ Nish vs George Sebastian @ Joy on 18 September, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191729","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}