Second Marriage Ruled Invalid Due to Undissolved First Marriage
Case Summary: Supreme Court Appeal No: SC/APPEAL/179/2019:
1. Parties
Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent: Sooriya Pahtirennehelage Piyalka Weerakanthi
Respondent-Respondent-Appellants:
Sembukutti Arachchige Radhika Siriwardena
Sembukutti Arachchige Premaratne
Sembukutti Arachchige Piyathilaka
Sembukutti Arachchige Sisira Priyankara
Sembukutti Arachchige Sisira Sanoja Dilhani
Sembukutti Arachchige Leelawati Manike
Sembukutti Arachchige Paulu Appuhamy
2. Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed a case in the District Court of Kuliyapitiya under Section 528 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking letters of administration for her deceased husband’s intestate estate, claiming to be his widow.
The 2nd respondent, the deceased’s brother, challenged the validity of the petitioner’s marriage, arguing that it was void under Section 18 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance because the petitioner was still married to her first husband when she entered into her second marriage.
The District Court ruled against the petitioner, denying her letters of administration.
On appeal, the High Court overturned the District Court’s decision and ordered a retrial, stating that the District Court had failed to consider Section 108 of the Evidence Ordinance (which deals with the presumption of death after seven years of absence).
The respondents then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erred in its ruling.
3. Legal Issues
Was the petitioner’s second marriage valid, given that her first marriage had not been legally dissolved?
Did the High Court err in applying Section 108 of the Evidence Ordinance (presumption of death after seven years of absence) to justify the second marriage?
Did the High Court err in ordering a retrial?
4. Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, reinstating the District Court’s decision that the petitioner’s second marriage was null and void.
The Court held that:
A second marriage is void under Section 18 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance if the first marriage has not been legally dissolved.
Section 108 of the Evidence Ordinance only creates a presumption of death; it does not validate an otherwise void second marriage.
The High Court misdirected itself in applying Section 108 to validate the second marriage and wrongly ordered a retrial.
Since the petitioner’s second marriage was void, she was not entitled to letters of administration as the widow of the deceased.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the District Court’s ruling.
5. Conclusion
The petitioner’s claim as the widow was rejected because her second marriage was invalid.
The respondents (siblings of the deceased) won the appeal and were granted letters of administration for the estate.
The presumption of death (Section 108 of the Evidence Ordinance) does not legalize a second marriage if the first one is still legally binding.
