Judge closes case sparked by Indian diocese’s marriage rules
The case highlighted the ancient marriage practices of Knanaya Catholics.
A judge in the southern Indian state of Kerala has closed a contempt of court case challenging a diocese’s unique marriage rules.
The Kerala High Court marked the case against Archbishop Mathew Moolakkatt, head of the Syro-Malabar Archeparchy of Kottayam, and local pastor Fr. Sijo Stephan closed last week, UCA News reported Sept. 11.
The case was brought by Justin John, an auto-rickshaw driver, who filed a petition after the Kottayam archeparchy failed to grant him a consent letter enabling him to marry a Catholic from another diocese in May 2023 without forfeiting his membership of the archeparchy.
But the archeparchy finally issued the consent letter, known as a “vivaha kuri,” Sept. 2.
The document, seen by The Pillar, indicates there is “no objection” to John’s marriage to Vijimol Shaji, a Catholic from the Syro-Malabar Archeparchy of Tellicherry.
The text says the question of whether John forfeits his membership in the Kottayam archeparchy as a result of the marriage “will depend upon and abide by the judgment” pending in another case filed at the Kerala High Court.
The certificate is signed by Fr. Saneesh Kayyalakkakath, the recently appointed pastor of John’s home parish, St. Anne’s Knanaya Catholic Church in Kottody, Kasaragod District.
The contempt of court case highlights the distinctive approach to marriage in the Kottayam archeparchy, which was established in 1911 exclusively for Knanaya Catholics, an ethnic group tracing its origins to Jewish Christians who migrated from Mesopotamia to India in the 4th century.
Membership in the close-knit Knanaya community is determined by family lineage, so Knanaya Catholics are expected to marry someone within the same community, a norm known as endogamy.
If a member of the Kottayam archeparchy marries outside of the community, they relinquish their membership in the archeparchy.
John had scheduled his wedding to Vijimol Shaji for May 18, 2023, after what he described as a fruitless five-year search for a wife within the Knanaya Catholic community.
John planned to marry at his bride’s church, St. Xavier’s in Kottody, believing his pastor would grant him a vivaha kuri, because of an interim order by the high court that the archeparchy must issue a consent letter to any member who wishes to marry a Catholic from another diocese.
But John did not receive the document from Fr. Stephan, the then pastor of St. Anne’s. This meant the couple were restricted to a symbolic exchange of garlands in front of the church before a reported 1,000 guests.
John filed a petition at the high court in August 2023, accusing Archbishop Moolakkatt and Fr. Stephan of contempt of court.
But in a 14-page submission to the high court in October 2023, Archbishop Moolakkatt insisted he had “neither intended to act nor acted in defiance of court orders at any point in time.”
He denied that the archeparchy had failed to grant a vivaha kuri, arguing that John had not met the criteria for marriage.
He said that John had not undergone pre-marital counseling at his parish or requested to undergo it at another parish, as required by the archeparchy.
The archbishop, who has led the Kottayam archeparchy since 2005, described the incident as a “stage-managed affair” intended to damage the archeparchy’s image, noting it had prompted news reports, as well as coverage on social media.
Supporters of changes to the archeparchy’s marriage rules have previously told The Pillar it would be unfair to hold John responsible for the widespread interest in the case as he was not involved in media coverage.
Critics of the marriage rules described the granting of a consent letter to John as a significant milestone. But it is unclear what will happen next.
John told UCA News he intended to discuss “a date to solemnize the marriage” with Fr. Kayyalakkakath.
The priest said: “Now, John can get his marriage solemnized in any church. There will be no objection.”
But John’s membership of the Kottayam archeparchy appears to rest on the resolution of another case before the high court.
The case dates back to 2015, when a group known as the Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy (KCNS) filed a petition against the requirement that Catholics marrying outside of the archeparchy forfeit their membership.
In 2021, a lower court ruled that members of the archeparchy should be able to retain their membership when marrying Catholics outside the community.
After Archbishop Moolakkatt challenged the decision, the Kerala High Court refused in March 2023 to lift the ruling, but agreed to hear an appeal against it.
The high court is also due to hear another case that dates back to 1989, when the layman Biju Uthup was denied a vivaha kuri by the Kottayam archeparchy, because his grandmother was not a member of the Knanaya Catholic community.
Uthup, a retired aeronautical scientist, has pursued a legal battle for more than three decades, through several appeals and reviews.
At an initial hearing for the KCNS and Biju Uthup cases at Kerala High Court Aug. 23, the judge signaled the cases would be heard after the Justin John case.
The next hearing was scheduled for Sept. 25.
Why the desire to maintain status in the Archeparchy? It seems a lot of time and effort is being expended, but I don’t have the context to understand why it matters so much for them.
The contradiction, for me, is they so badly want to remain a member if the group they’ll go to court to keep their status, but yet they don’t want to abide by the rules of the group forbidding out-group marriage.
So, obviously, it’s not actually about the group but about something else. What is that ‘something else’?