In the Matter of the Marriage of: Gurinder Kaur & Raghbir Singh Sandhu
This text of In the Matter of the Marriage of: Gurinder Kaur & Raghbir Singh Sandhu (In the Matter of the Marriage of: Gurinder Kaur & Raghbir Singh Sandhu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FILED DECEMBER 30, 2022 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) No. 38248-6-III ) GURINDER KAUR, ) ) Appellant, ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION and ) ) RAGHBIR SINGH SANDHU, ) ) Respondent. )
PENNELL, J. — Gurinder Kaur appeals a trial court order denying her petition
to annul her marriage to Raghbir Singh Sandhu and instead dissolving the marriage. We
affirm.
FACTS
In 2009, Gurinder Kaur and Raghbir Sandhu participated in a ceremonial marriage
in the Republic of India. They later moved at the same time to the United States of
America. The parties lived together in the United States for several years as husband and No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu
wife and had a child in 2013. In 2017, Mr. Sandhu moved out of the family home. Ms.
Kaur subsequently filed an action in Whitman County Superior Court for legal separation,
later amending her petition for annulment of the marriage. Ms. Kaur claimed Mr. Sandhu
fraudulently represented to her that he registered their marriage as required under Indian
law when he in fact failed to do so, and thus their marriage was legally void. Mr. Sandhu
disagreed with Ms. Kaur’s allegations and asked the court to issue an order dissolving the
marriage.
A bench trial was held in 2021. The primary disputed issue was whether the
parties’ marriage certificate had been signed and registered in accordance with Indian
law. Ms. Kaur presented evidence of irregularities in the certificate used by Mr. Sandhu
to obtain immigration status. 1 She also presented an authenticated document from the
jurisdiction in India where the ceremony had taken place, stating there was no record of
the parties’ marriage. Mr. Sandhu disputed Ms. Kaur’s claims. At trial, he produced a
copy of a marriage certificate that was partially signed. Ms. Kaur argued the document
was likely a forgery.
1 At the time of the marriage ceremony, Ms. Kaur was a United States citizen, but Mr. Sandhu was not. Mr. Sandhu subsequently became a naturalized citizen based on his marriage to Ms. Kaur.
2 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu
After the presentation of testimony, the trial court requested additional briefing on
Indian law and took the matter under advisement. Along with his supplemental briefing,
Mr. Sandhu submitted another purported copy of his marriage certificate which appeared
to be signed in full, thus remedying the deficiencies pointed out at trial by Ms. Kaur.
Ms. Kaur moved to strike the supplemental exhibit on the basis of hearsay, lack of
authentication, and its submission after trial. The court denied the motion.
The trial court ultimately ruled in Mr. Sandhu’s favor and determined there had
been a valid marriage. The court’s finding of validity rested heavily on the marriage
certificate that had been submitted posttrial. The court alternatively ruled that even if
there had been some flaws in the marriage process, the parties had ratified the marriage
by their subsequent conduct pursuant to RCW 26.09.040(4)(b)(i) and (ii). The court then
denied Ms. Kaur’s petition for annulment and instead issued a final divorce order.
Ms. Kaur has filed a timely appeal. Mr. Sandhu has not participated in the appeal.
ANALYSIS
Ms. Kaur challenges the trial court’s findings regarding the validity of the
marriage. She also claims the court committed legal error in determining that ratification
applied to the parties’ circumstances. We analyze a trial court’s factual findings for
3 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu
substantial evidence. In re Marriage of Akon, 160 Wn. App. 48, 57, 248 P.3d 94 (2011).
Claims of legal error are reviewed de novo. Id.
We affirm the trial court’s disposition. Ms. Kaur has not shown that any failure to
register her marriage certificate in India rendered the marriage void or voidable. Thus,
regardless of whether the trial court erred in admitting Mr. Sandhu’s posttrial exhibit or
adopting an alternative theory of ratification, the court’s determination that the parties had
been validly married must be affirmed.
Petitions for marriage annulments are governed by RCW 26.09.040. This statute
provides that when the parties are married in a jurisdiction outside of Washington, an
annulment petition must be granted if the court finds the marriage “was void or voidable
under the law of the place where the marriage . . . was contracted” unless there is proof
of subsequent validation. RCW 26.09.040(4)(c). The contours of foreign law are an issue
of fact that must be pleaded and proved at trial. State v. Rivera, 95 Wn. App. 961, 966,
977 P.2d 1247 (1999).
Because the parties were married in the Republic of India, Ms. Kaur introduced
India’s Special Marriage Act of 1954 (the Act) as the law governing the parties’ marriage.
A copy of pertinent portions of the Act is reproduced from the record on review and
appended to this decision. Section 16 of the Act requires all marriages to be registered.
4 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu
Clerk’s Papers at 247. However, section 16 does not specify that unregistered marriages
are void or voidable. Instead, the issue of void or voidable marriages is addressed in
sections 24 and 25 of the Act. Id. at 248-49. Sections 24 and 25 list various circumstances
that render a marriage void or voidable. Neither section refers to unregistered marriages.
It bears noting that not all procedural flaws will render a marriage void or
voidable. For example, Washington (like most jurisdictions) requires parties obtain a
license prior to the wedding ceremony. RCW 26.04.140. But the failure to obtain a
license “does not render a marriage void or even voidable.” State v. Denton, 97 Wn. App.
267, 271, 983 P.2d 693 (1999).
The evidence at trial did not show that the parties’ marriage was void or voidable
as required for an annulment under RCW 26.09.040(4)(c). As a result, the trial judge’s
decision must stand. Regardless of whether the trial court erroneously entertained the
concept of ratification under RCW 26.09.040(4)(b)(i) or abused its discretion in accepting
Mr. Sandhu’s posttrial exhibit, the court’s decision that the parties had entered into a valid
marriage must be affirmed.
Ms. Kaur requests an award of attorney fees on appeal, citing her financial need
and Mr. Sandhu’s ability to pay. We decline to award fees to Ms. Kaur given she has not
prevailed on appeal.
5 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Gurinder Kaur & Raghbir Singh Sandhu, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-the-marriage-of-gurinder-kaur-raghbir-singh-sandhu-washctapp-2022.