Archdiocesan Tribunal

METROPOLITAN MARRIAGE TRIBUNAL

Latin Archdiocese of Trivandrum

Archbishop's House Campus, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum - 695003
Kerala, India
Tel: 0091-471-2724001, Fax: 0091-471-2725001

METROPOLITAN MARRIAGE TRIBUNAL
Judicial Vicar
Very Rev. Dr. Gladin Alex., D.C.L
Defender of the Bond

Judges
Very Rev. Dr. C. Joseph, D.C.L
Rev. Fr. Xavier Valiaparambil C.P., M.C.L
Notaries
Rev. Fr. Paul G.
Mr. Oscar Lopez
Office Staff
Mrs Sobhitha

**Marriage Annulments in the Archdiocese of Trivandrum**
The Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Trivandrum is competent to deal all the marriage cases of its members in the First Instance and the cases of the members of its suffragan dioceses of Alleppey, Neyyatinkara, Punaloor and Quilon in the Second Instance. All the marriages in question celebrated in the Archdiocese of Trivandrum and of those respondents who are having their domicile in this Archdiocese can be petitioned to this Metropolitan Tribunal.
Working Hours and Mailing Address
This Tribunal works Everyday except Sundays from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm. Taking of depositions of the parties and witnesses is held only before noon hours. Afternoon hours are meant for office works. All the cases be addressed to the Judicial Vicar, Archbishop's House, Vellyambalam, Trivandrum 695 003. Kerala, S. India.
Marriage
The Catholic Church teaches that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Marriage. By doing so He enhanced the dignity of an institution already made holy in God’s creation. Marriage is an enduring and exclusive partnership in which husband and wife establish a loving and life-giving relationship. For this reason the Church views divorce very seriously. The Church does not accept that divorce can sever the actual bond of a valid marriage. Church law, in fact, presumes that a marriage is valid once it is entered, a presumption which remains in force unless and until the contrary is proved. Not every marital relationship meets the standard that Christ established for marriage – a standard which requires certain intentions and capabilities on the part of the husband and wife. When these intentions and capabilities are seriously deficient, a marriage does not have the kind of enduring bond which Christ taught was indissoluble (unbreakable). In other words, while a marriage relationship may exist between the parties and have certain consequences, it is not necessarily the type of marriage bond which can be broken only by the death of one of the parties.
The Nature of an Annulment
The purpose of a nullity process is to determine whether or not an indissoluble marriage bond was created when the parties entered their marriage. It must be proved clearly and without doubt that this enduring bond was not established in order to declare the marriage null. This proof must focus on grounds of nullity recognized by Church law and must apply to the marriage from its very beginning. The Tribunal handles the nullity process. This office of the Archdiocese works under a set of procedures and laws established as part of the universal law of the Church. Each case submitted to the Tribunal is unique. It is impossible, therefore, to generalize accurately about marriage cases. Only a broad picture of the actual procedure is possible.
Annulment Procedures
There are a number of distinct types of annulment procedures in Church law. The ordinary procedure is described here. The first step for a Petitioner considering a marriage case is to approach the local parish priest who will assist the Petitioner for formulating a petition for submission to the Tribunal. The petition should contain the identity of the petitioner and the respondent with postal address and the name of the parish. The reason for requesting annulment should be clearly narrated. If the information indicates no evident basis for a case, the Petitioner might be required to submit a more detailed account of the marriage in question.
The Respondent
The Tribunal next contacts the other party to the marriage – the Respondent – who has a right to be heard. The respondent will be summoned to the court for taking deposition on the case regarding the alleged grounds of nullity. The importance of the Respondent’s cooperation varies from case to case. In some instances it might be impossible to prove the contention without such cooperation; in other cases it might be less important. The Respondent is given a set period of time to reply. An additional period can be requested if the one initially established is inconvenient. A Respondent is not permitted, however, to delay a case unreasonably. The Respondent’s cooperation is not essential and, in the event of non-cooperation, the case can proceed, recognizing that the grounds of the case must still be proved. Contact, therefore, with the Respondent is necessary for the purpose of information and to implement the Respondent’s rights. In the ordinary course of events, both the Petitioner and the Respondent will be given the opportunity to review each other’s written testimony, as well as any statements by witnesses which are not protected by the seal of confidentiality. The Petitioner should take all this into consideration at the beginning of the process, to assess whether he/she has an objection to this procedure.
Witnesses
It is the Petitioner’s responsibility to ensure that the various witnesses cooperate. The Petitioner is expected to inform witnesses that they will be contacted by the Tribunal, and request their prompt cooperation. Each witness is sent a questionnaire based on the grounds in the case and a cover letter explaining how to proceed. Witnesses are encouraged to be as complete as possible in their answers. The testimony is to be given under oath, and witnesses have the option of signing the completed questionnaire before a Catholic priest or pastoral minister or before a notary public.
Timing
The length of time involved varies from case to case and depends on many factors, most of which are beyond the control of the Tribunal. The Petitioner will be informed of the average length of time for the type of case presented. It should be understood that this is simply an average and by no means guarantees that the case will be completed in that time or that the final decision will be favorable. For this reason, the parties are cautioned against making any plans regarding a future marriage until the entire tribunal process is complete and the final decision rendered.
Appeal
A favorable decision in the Diocesan Tribunal must be reviewed by the Court of Appeal of the Quilon Diocesan Tribunal. This requires additional time, which may be substantial depending on the kind of case. This is another reason why a Petitioner should make no plans for a marriage until the process is finally complete. Upon completion, the Petitioner is notified and sent a copy of the final decree. A similar communication is sent to the Respondent unless he/she has indicated to the contrary or has waived the right of notification either expressly or tacitly earlier in the process.
Fees
The Archdiocese subsidizes the Tribunal. To keep the subsidy within manageable limits, each Petitioner is assessed a fee. The Archdiocese of Trivandrum incurs costs of approximately Rs. 5000 in processing a case. The Petitioner is asked to assume a portion of the cost, which involves ordinary office expenses, telephone calls, fees for psychiatric experts, appellate court costs, etc.
Points to Consider
Careful consideration should be given to the following points:
A declaration of nullity by the Church has no civil effects in India. It does not, therefore, affect rights in regard to matters such as property, inheritance, visitation of children, and the like. It has no effect on any children born of the union, in regard to rights or legitimacy, either in secular law or in Church law. All Tribunal matters are guarded by strict and sacred confidence. A Tribunal process exists for church purposes only. No information can be transferred to or have any effect in any civil process. The Trivandrum Archdiocesan Tribunal accepts cases or petitions for review even during the process of civil divorce. Since most matters must be put in writing eventually, written contact with the Tribunal office is preferred to telephone calls. Interested parties, such as the proposed spouse or relatives of the Petitioner or Respondent, should not inquire about the case, as information cannot be supplied to them. The recommendation is repeated that no date for a subsequent marriage be set until the case is completely decided by the courts of first and second instance. The Petitioner is wholly responsible for any problems which arise from disregard of this important caution.
The Judicial Vicar

Metropolitan Tribunal News

September - 2009

I. Decreed Cases: Nil
II. A. Judgment Pronounced in the First Instance: Nil
III. Closed for Reconcilation: Nil
IV. Disposed due to non co-operation of the petitioner: Nil
V. Closed due to Renunciation: Nil
VI. Closed due to Death: 01
Case No. 15A/2008 Marykutty Edwin and Ouseph
VII. Closed for Judgement: 35
1.   Case No. 176/2001 Jijimon (Kochuthope) and Deepa (Vettucaud)
2.   Case No. 17/2003 Jose E. Caroline (Marthandanthura) and Suresh Kumar (Kollemcode)
3.   Case No. 21/2003 Jespy (Vizhinjam) and Jerome (Poonthura)
4.   Case No. 07/2004 Bindhya Haroline (Cheriyathura) and Kennedy Joseph (Trichy)
5.   Case No. 10/2004 Abha Nepolean (Kumarapuram) and Aloscious (Pettah)
6.   Case No. 16/2004 Anu Peter (Kochuveli) and Arun Loptez (Valiaveli)
7.   Case No. 4/2005 Mary Gorietty (Thope) and Celine Lloyid(Kalikkavila)
8.   Case No. 17/2005 Baby Jude (Anjengo) and Annachithra (Valiathura)
9.   Case No. 32/2005 Mary Anitha (Kochuveli) and Vijin Lukose (Valiathura)
10. Case No. 02/2006 Stellus and Esther Gomez both from Pallithura.
11. Case No. 08/2006 Sheena (Arayathuruthy) and James George (Kollam)
12. Case No. 17/2006 John B (Thazhampally) and Mary Sunitha (Puthukurichy)
13. Case No. 08/2007 Judsy (Chinnathura) and David (Villipakkom)
14. Case No. 09/2007 Arulappan (Kazhakkuttom) and Sudha (Vattappara)
15. Case No. 18/2007 Johnson Simon (Puthiyathura) and Jolly (Vizhinjam)
16. Case No: 19/2007 Teena Fancis from Nettayam and Jose Antony from Palayam.
17. Case No. 20/2007 Sajin A (Chinnathura) and Mini (Thoothoor)
18. Case No. 22/2007 Libi (Eraimenthurai) and Prabahar (Keezhmanakudy).
19. Case No. 26/2007 Caroline (Vennicode) and Joy Thomas (Kollam)
20. Case No. 29/2007 Delima (Vettucaud) and Robinson (Vettucaud)
21. Case No. 32/2007 Rajappan (Kalikkavila) and Baby (Adimalathura)
22. Case No. 33/2007 Daniel D’cruz (Puthenthope) and Anna Sesbik (Ramapuram -Pala)).
23. Case No. 36/2007 Sindhu (Poovar ) and Sujith ( Vennala)
24. Case No. 37/2007 Jerome Gomez (Palayam) and Mary Jerome (Vattappara).
25. Case No. 39/2007 Christudas and Pushpam Morais both from Vizhinjam.
26. Case No. 40/2007 Joy Thomas ( Nanthencode) and Chinchu (Sreekaryam)
27. Case No. 42/2007 Presila (Kazhakkuttom) and Yesudas (Kovilthottam).
28. Case No. 45/2007 Reena Pereira (Puthukurichy) and Thomas Xavier (Veroor)
29. Case No. 16/2008 Tomy from Pala and Susheela from Poonthura.
30. Case No. 26/2008 Sweety Watson and Biju Thomas.
31. Case No. 32/2008 Sunitha Wifred from Kochuveli and Sarath Chandran from Kalluvathukkal.
32. Case No. 33/2008 Prem Kumar from Poothurai and Merlin Cletus from Kannanthura.
33. Case No. 36/2008 Sosamma (Susheela) and Stephen both from Valiathura.
34. Case No. 40/2008 Aneesh Stephen from Karyavattom and Dhanya from Pangappara
35. Case No. 54/2008 Pathrose from Kazhakkuttom and Selvi Morais from Vettucaud.

VIII. Under Process: 41
1.   Case No. 08/2004 Sheeba and Thomas. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
2.   Case No.11/2006 Albert J. Miranda and Catherine.Pending for want of deposition of the petitioner.
3.   15/2006 Stalin Harold and Celine Fernandez. The petitioner informed that he will appear before the court later. But there is no response from the respondent Celine.
4.   Case No: 05/2007 Rajan Antony and Nirmala. Pending for want of deposition of the petitioner.
5.   Case No: 06/2007 Thomas Kuriakose and Abraham Mary. Pending for want of deposition of the respondent Abraham Mary.
6.   Case No: 07/2007 Eightus Thomas and Shyja. Pending for want of deposition of the respondent.
7.   Case No. 01/2008 Nirmala and Santhosh. Pending for want of deposition of the respondent.
8.   Case No. 02/2008 Fildus Vincent and Vidhya. Pending for want of deposition of the respondent.
9.   Case No. 03/2008 Manoj and Annie. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent Annie.
10. Case No. 05/2008 Varki Lopez and Ibin. The respondent Ibin informed that she will appear before the court later.
11. Case No. 07/2008 Joy and Merphy. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent Merphy.
12. Case No. 08/2008 Johny and Hema. So far no reply from both the parties.
13. Case No. 09/2008 Maria Goretty and Nixon Ouseph. Pending for want of deposition of the petitioner.
14. Case No. 12/2008 Arokya Selvi and John George. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
15. Case No. 13/2008 Stephen and Delphin Sunitha. The petitioner Stephen informed that he will appear before the court later. But there is no response from respondent Delphin Sunitha.
16. Case No. 14/2008 Nepolian and Leema Irine. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent
17. Case No. 15/2008 Soosamma and Thadeus. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
18. Case No. 22/2008 Lovely and Alexander Stephan. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
19. Case No. 24/2008 Shine Alfred and Shoban Johns. The case is pending for the want of deposition of one witness of the respondent.
20. Case No. 25/2008 between Benedicta Lopez and Joseph Pereira. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
21. Case No. 27/2008 Leema and Amaladasan. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
22. Case No. 28/2008 Mary Sangeetha and Michael John Lopez. Pending for want of deposition of the witnesses of the respondent Michael John Lopez.
23. Case No. 29/2008 Pushpa Joseph and Leon Thomas Kumar. Pending for want of deposition of the Petitioner.
24. Case No. 30/2008 Teena Ben and Raju M. Gomez. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
25. Case No. 31/2008 Eugine J and Angel Fernandez. Pending for want of deposition of the witnesses of the respondent.
26. Case No. 37/2008 Renjith Jackson and Swapna Jose. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
27. Case No. 39/2008 Feriyolus and Roshni. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
28. Case No. 42/2008 Shyni Suresh and John Gilbert both from Valiathura. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
29. Case No. 43/2008 Jackson J and Mary Beena. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
30. Case No. 44/2008 Lawrence and Josephy. The summonses were sent to both the parties. But so far no reply from both the parties.
31. Case No. 45/2008 Mary Bernard and Selvi. Pending for want of deposition of the Petitioner.
32. Case No. 47/2008 Loosy and Varghese. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
33. Case No. 48/2008 Raju and Prabha. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
34. Case No. 49/2008 Xavier Godvin and Rani Xavier. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
35. Case No. 50/2008 B G Jayaprakash and C S Sobha. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
36. Case No. 51/2008 Shailaja Wifred and Helson. Pending for want of deposition of the Petitioner.
37. Case No. 52/2008 Ancilamma and Christadima. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
38. Case No. 53/2008 Minimol and Johnboy. Pending for want of deposition of witnesses of the Petitioner.
39. Case No. 55/2008 Liji Fancis and Christy Clement Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.
40. Case No. 56/2008 Anthony and Sahaya Meena. The summonses were sent to both the parties. But so far no reply from both the parties.
41. Case No. 57/2008 Armstrong Bastin and Jeena. Pending for want of deposition of the Respondent.

IX. Judgement of ratification by the Second Instance: Nil

A. Cases from Aleppy Diocese: Nil
B. Cases from Quilon Diocese: 03
1.   Case No. QDT/147/A2/2003 between Jacentha Vincent and Dionysius
2.   Case No. QDT/560/E6/2009 between Rosy and John Bosco
3.   Case No. QDT/408/C1/2004 between Sharlet and Nepolean

Oscar A. Lopez Fr. Hyacinth M. Nayakam
Notary Judicial Vicar