Amit Goyal v Ankita Goyal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Kitchin |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 523 |
| Docket Number | B6/2013/2640 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 27 February 2014 |
[2014] EWCA Civ 523
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE EVERALL QC)
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London
EC41 1NL
Lord Justice Kitchin
B6/2013/2640
Mr Goyal appeared as an Applicant in person
Ms Goyal appeared as a Respondent in person
This is an application for permission to appeal against the judgment of His Honour Judge Everall QC given on 23 August 2013 whereby he found that there was a valid marriage between the petitioner, Mrs Goyal, and the respondent, Mr Goyal, on 15 September 2003 in Meerut, India; that the marriage had irretrievably broken down; that the respondent had behaved in such a way that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with him; and that a decree nisi of divorce would be pronounced.
The respondent, the applicant for permission, argues that the judge ought to have found that the petitioner married another man on 15 September 2003, that the marriage ceremony that she entered into with the respondent in fact took place on 18 September 2003 and that it was invalid because the petitioner was, by that date, already married to somebody else.
In very broad outline, the judge accepted the evidence of the petitioner that her marriage to the respondent was arranged by their respective parents and that they became engaged in August 2003. At that time, the respondent had been offered and accepted a place to study for a PhD at INSEAD in France. It was planned that the petitioner and the respondent would marry on 18 September and that this would allow the petitioner to travel back to France with the respondent on 21 September.
On 12 September the petitioner attended at the French embassy hoping to be granted a visa but this was refused because she was not yet married. It then became apparent that they would not have enough time to obtain a marriage certificate and a visa between the wedding ceremony on the evening of 18 September and their departure to France on 21 September. The respondent and his family therefore asked the petitioner's family to arrange a short marriage ceremony in advance of the main wedding so that an application for a visa could be made in good time before their departure. The ceremony was arranged for 15 September and took place in Meerut, this being the petitioner's home town.
The judge rejected the respondent's case that the petitioner married somebody else on 15 September, finding that this was never the petitioner's intention and it was most unlikely that she would marry another man on that day and then proceed to marry the respondent on 18 September and fly off to live with him in Europe, particularly since that other person has never been heard of since. The judge also found that the respondent knew that the marriage certificate recorded the fact of their marriage on 15 September from the time that it was handed over to him by the petitioner's father on 17 September during a ceremony referred to in these proceedings as the henna ceremony. The respondent had used the marriage certificate since that date to enable the petitioner to accompany him both to France and subsequently to the UK and to enable the petitioner to obtain indefinite leave to stay in the UK. Indeed, he instructed his solicitors to seek the dissolution of the marriage between him and the petitioner on the basis that it took place on 15 September in Meerut. On 18 September the petitioner and the respondent then attended the French embassy with the certificate and applied for a visa. They then enjoyed their further marriage ceremony on the evening of 18 September and on 19 September collected the visa. On 21 September they flew to France.
The respondent now contends that the judge fell into error in the following respects. First, it is said that he ignored the relevant and material evidence of the marriage record of 15 September. Second, it is said that he failed to consider the Indian law applicable to the marriage, namely the Hindu Marriages Act of 1955. Third, it is said that he failed to consider the recommendations of the court appointed single joint expert and the Registrar of Hindu marriages in Meerut. Fourth, it is said that he failed to give due weight to the authority, operating proceedings and practices of the public offices of the Registrar of marriages. Fifth, it is said that he failed to give due weight to the practical evidence given in respect of the impossibility of the respondent being able to travel to Meerut in the relevant timeframe. Finally, it is said that he wrongly relied upon the uncorroborated evidence of the petitioner and her family and failed to consider the inconsistencies in that evidence.
Before coming to these grounds it must be observed that the respondent is seeking to challenge what is ultimately a finding of fact. As this court has recently reiterated in the case of Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5, appellate courts have been repeatedly warned by recent cases at the highest level not to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges unless compelled to do so. This applies not only to findings of primary fact but also to the evaluation of those facts and to inferences to be drawn from them. The reasons for this approach include the expertise of trial judges in determining what facts are relevant to the issues to be decided and what those facts are if they are disputed;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ankita Goyal v Amit Goyal
...Civ 792), available on Bailii. 2 Further background can be found in a permission judgment given by Kitchen LJ on 27 February 2014 ( [2014] EWCA Civ 523), also on Bailii, in which the full names of the parties are given. Therefore, there is no reason to accede to Mr Turner QC's request that......