In the Matter of the Marriage of: Gurinder Kaur & Raghbir Singh Sandhu (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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: GURINDER KAUR, Appellant, and RAGHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 38248-6-III UNPUBLISHED OPINION PENNELL, J. — Gurinder Kaur appeals a trial court order denying her petition to annul her marriage to Raghbir Singh Sandhu and instead dissolving the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. 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. 1 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 CONCLUSION The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040. _________________________________ Pennell, J. WE CONCUR: ______________________________ Fearing, J. ______________________________ Staab, J. 6 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu The Special Marriage Act,1954 Republic of India (Reproduced from Clerk’s Papers at 243-58) 7 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 8 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 9 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 10 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 11 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 12 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 13 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 14 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 15 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 16 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 17 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 18 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 19 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 20 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 21 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 22 No. 38248-6-III In re Marriage of Kaur & Sandhu 23
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
