The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-0679 Civil LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : ROHAN DOOKHARAN, : DEFENDANT : 09-0679 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Bayley, J., June 12, 2009:-- On February 18, 2009, Leelawattie Jagdeo filed a complaint in divorce against 1 Rohan Dookharan. On April 8, 2009, Dookharan filed for a declaratory judgment seeking an order that he is not married to Jagdeo. A hearing was conducted on May 11, 2009. Dookharan and Jagdeo started living together in the Bronx New York City in December, 1995. They are the parents of Dylan Dookharan, born November 24, 1996, and Brandon Dookharan, born January 14, 2000. They moved with their children to Pennsylvania in January, 2003. They separated on December 22, 2008. They were of the Hindu faith. Jagdeo testified that they were married by a Pandit when they exchanged vows in a Hindu religious ceremony in Queens New York City on August 10, 2001. No marriage license was issued. Dookharan testified that he and Jagdeo were never married by a Pandit in any religious ceremony – no vows were ever made. He testified that on the occasion when Jagdeo says they were married they were actually at a Jahdi, a Hindu ceremony to thank God for a healthy and prosperous year. After 09-0679 CIVIL TERM Jagdeo testified and introduced pictures of a wedding ceremony, Dookharan, through his counsel, took an alternate position that even if the court were to find that there was 2 a ceremonial marriage it was not legally valid. In addition to the wedding pictures, Jagdeo showed the court her wedding ring. She testified that Dookharan lost his wedding ring in Pennsylvania. She described the elaborate ceremony performed by the Pandit in which she and Dookharan exchanged vows. Dookharan was dressed in a dark suit and she had on a beautiful sari with a long headdress that trails below her waist. There was a band of flowers around each of their necks. Jagdeo described how the Pandit took a mango leaf, removed the leaves, and knotted it like a ring and how Dookharan put it on her finger. They walked around a mythical fire seven times and the Pandit made a mark on the top of her forehead, called a sindhur, which shows in a picture. She described how during the ceremony they promised to love each other and to take care of each other as husband and wife and how he promised “to hold her in sickness, health and everything – I forgot the other words.” They had a wedding cake, there were presents, and there were friends and family there. Krishnarine Harduial, who is married to Jagdeo’s sister, testified that he was at the wedding and a Jahdi which was held before the wedding. 1 Jagdeo is known by the first name of Asha. 2 Jagdeo testified that she had pictures of the wedding at the home in Mechanicsburg where she lived with Dookharan, but Dookharan removed them. She was however able to obtain pictures which were in her mother’s possession. -2- 09-0679 CIVIL TERM Dookharan testified that for 2006, 2007 and 2008, he and Jagdeo filed joint tax returns as husband and wife which he had prepared. He testified that before 2006 he filed tax returns as head of household but he did not produce copies of any of those returns. He did produce a copy of his certificate of naturalization entered on July 1, 2005, which lists him as single. On October 28, 2004, he and Jagdeo are listed as buyers on an agreement of sale for Two Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg. On a deed that was executed on October 29 the grantee is listed as “ROHAN DOOKHARAN, married man.” On June 1, 2008, when the parties were having significant difficulties, Dookharan signed a typed document as “Your Husband” in which he agreed to do certain things involving “My wife, Asha.” He testified that Jagdeo presented him with the document and that he only signed it as a condition of being allowed to return to the residence they shared. Jagdeo testified that Dookharan had the document prepared as she does not type or speak English well enough to have prepared it herself. We find that Dookharan and Jagdeo were married in Queens New York in a religious ceremony performed by a Hindu Pandit. Accordingly, we must now determine 3 whether that marriage was valid under New York law. Pursuant to New York’s Domestic Relations Law § 11, “No marriage shall be valid unless solemnized by . . . [a] clergyman or minister of any religion . . . .” The terms “clergyman” and “minister’’ are defined in New York’s Religious Corporations Law § 2 to include: __________ 3 The general rule is that a marriage which is valid by the law of the place where it is Stull’s Estate – Morehouse’s Appeal, solemnized is valid everywhere. 183 Pa. 625 -3- 09-0679 CIVIL TERM a duly authorized pastor, rector, priest, rabbi, and a person having authority from, or in accordance with, the rules and regulations of the governing ecclesiastical body of the denomination or order, if any, to which the church belongs, or otherwise from the church or synagogue to preside over and direct the spiritual affairs of the church or synagogue. As a result of the passage of Section 11 of the Domestic Relations Law, which requires solemnization of a marriage by a clergyman or minister, common law marriage has been abolished in New York. A marriage is considered to have been solemnized when “the parties . . . solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife.” N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 12. Nothing in Article 3 of the Domestic Relations Law “shall be construed to render void by reason of a failure to procure a marriage license any marriage solemnized between persons of full age . . . .” N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 25. Persad v. Balram In , 724 N.Y.S.2d 560 (N.Y.Sup. Ct. 2001), the Supreme Court in Queens New York held that a marriage solemnized by a Pandit, a Hindu priest, through a traditional Hindu wedding was valid under New York law despite the couple’s failure to obtain a marriage license. The court reasoned that the couple, pursuant to their Hindu faith, had engaged in an austere ritual, which had been attended by numerous guests, during which they had exchanged vows and had declared their intentions to be husband and wife. The ceremony had been performed by a Pandit who (1898). -4- 09-0679 CIVIL TERM had been ordained on February 21, 1993, more than a year prior to the ceremony. The court also found that the couple’s postnuptial cohabitation lasting seven years and their conception of a child were additional compelling factors in favor of affirming their marital status. Persad Although the Pandit in had been ordained, a clergyman or minister need not receive “authority from any governing body of any denomination or order” to be In re Silverstein’s Estate “authorized by statute to solemnize a marriage.” , 75 Silverstein N.Y.S.2d 144, 146 (1947). In , the Surrogate’s Court in Bronx New York held that a marriage solemnized by a rabbi who had not been authorized by any governing body of any denomination or order was valid. The court reasoned that the rabbi had received his authority from his congregation of approximately twenty-five persons who recognized him as their rabbi and for whom he “regularly performed all the duties of the spiritual leader.” In light of these facts, the court found that the rabbi was authorized by New York’s Domestic Relations Law § 11 to solemnize the marriage. sub judicePersad In the case , like in , Dookharan and Jagdeo exchanged vows and declared their intention to be husband and wife in a marriage ceremony presided Persad over by a Hindu Pandit. The wedding, as in , was an “austere ritual” which involved many ceremonial acts. The wedding was attended by friends and family. Dookharan and Jagdeo have two children together. There are some documents that refer to them as being married. Although no evidence was presented demonstrating that the Pandit had been authorized by any governing body to perform Hindu weddings, -5- 09-0679 CIVIL TERM evidence was adduced that he presided over many Hindu weddings in the Queens community as an accepted Pandit. Like the authority granted to the rabbi in Silverstein , recognition by the community of the Pandit’s authority to conduct weddings in accordance with the Hindu faith suffices to qualify him as a clergyman under N.Y. Religious Corporations Law § 2. As such, under New York law we find that he could solemnize marriages. We find that the marriage between Jagdeo and Dookharan is valid. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND NOW, this day of June, 2009, it is declared that ARE MARRIED. Leelawattie Jagdeo and Rohan Dookharan By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Krystal MacIntyre, Legal Intern Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire For Leelawattie Jagdeo Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire For Rohan Dookharan :sal -6- LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : ROHAN DOOKHARAN, : DEFENDANT : 09-0679 CIVIL TERM DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND NOW, this day of June, 2009, it is declared that ARE MARRIED. Leelawattie Jagdeo and Rohan Dookharan By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Krystal MacIntyre, Legal Intern Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire For Leelawattie Jagdeo Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire For Rohan Dookharan :sal