Divorce Attorneys

Before Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Wall and Justice, Lady-Hallett

Off March 19, 2008

A judge does not have the jurisdiction to make a declaration that a marriage without the consent was not valid under English law because such a marriage was invalid and non-appealable intitio, judges have affirmed that marriage has been recognized as a valid marriage in this jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgement reserved for the granting of permits to appeal to parents IC, a severely handicapped man at the age of 26, his friend proceedings, the official site of the solicitor, and hence the attractiveness of the limited scope that the statement Mr. Roderic Justice Wood ([2007] EWHC 3096 (Fam)), that the marriage of the IC and his wife was not valid under English law, should be replaced by a statement that the marriage, although by law into force of Bangladesh, was not to recognize them as a valid marriage in this jurisdiction.

Mr. Jan Luba QC and M. Stephen Knafler for parents of the IC, Mr. Alex Verdan, QC for the local authority, Miss Alison ball, QC, and Mr. Andrew Bagchi for IC.

LORD JUSTICE THORPE said that the family is at the heart of the complaint were British nationals residing and habitually resident in this jurisdiction. But the family was only IC Bangladesh and originally born in the country.

IC, born Oct. 11, 1981, and has suffered from severe intellectual disability to the viability and autism. It should provide considerable support in all areas of his life, and could not be left alone without any risk. He received home care in five mornings of the week, until they have in a day. Local authorities in support and protection to him, since he has four years.

The role of marriage in the life of a disabled person was so inconceivable in our society.

In addition, is regarded as a matter of law marriage has been excluded, since the basis of IC lacked the capacity to marry. But marriage has not been excluded, Bangladesh.

The local authority, the question of marriage of the parents of IC’s in the fall of 2006. There was no agreement, that the IC could not and should never marry, and so the local authority, the responsibility inherent in the High Court for a declaration of the IC was able to marry. IC’s parents responded that CI had married a Muslim at the ceremony by telephone.

In his lordship, judgement, the judge was wrong, reject applications on behalf of the parents IC’s is based on Article 12 © of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973, that the marriage was challenged.

The ruling and the rationale in re Roberts, who died in the Roberts Roberts ([1978] 1 WLR 653), it was clear and binding. His reign has been reinforced in the view that a provision which are not the judge, namely, sections 55 to 58 of the Family Law Act of 1986.

§ 55 (1) detailed statements on family circumstances, by the Tribunal. What was missing was a clear provision allows a declaration that the marriage was at its inception a marriage invalid.

The only way of an appeal before the court concludes that a marriage was invalid, as they are created has been a petition for nullity. If the judge had his attention to the provisions of the 1986 law his reign not think it would have been of the declaration, he did.

In this court, there was no investigation or argument as to the place of celebration. His lordship is not to be taken to approve the consensus among the parties to the effect that the marriage was celebrated in Bangladesh.

Lord Justice fire corresponds to a stop and Lady Justice Hallett agreed.

Solicitors: Bennett Wilkins, Creighton & Partner, Westminster, Irwin Mitchell.