Airam, Re [1976] TTLawRp 19; 7 TTR 426 (7 July 1976)

7 TTR 426

In the Matter of NASIE AIRAM

Civil Appeal No. 141

Appellate Division of the High Court

Truk District

July 7, 1976

Petition for order declaring appellant as lawful spouse and heir of deceased. Truk District Court denied petition, which judgment was affirmed by Trial Division of the High Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division of the High Court, Brown, Associate Justice, affirmed, holding that marriage of petitioner, a citizen of Trust Territory, to non-citizen, which was solemnized by a feast, was consummated, and out of which a child was born to the couple, who lived together, was nevertheless not a valid marriage since it was not solemnized by one authorized by statute relating to marriages of citizens and non-citizens.

1. Statutes—Construction—Construction with Other Laws

Where a statute contains a given provision, the omission of such provision from a similar statute concerning a related subject is significant to show that a different intention existed. (39 TTC §§ 51-53)

2. Statutes—Construction—Legislative Intent

Judicial construction of a statute should be in keeping with the natural and probable legislative purpose.

3. Domestic Relations—Marriage—Validity

Congress of Micronesia intended to make marriages by custom valid only between Trust Territory citizens, and as to marriages in Trust Terri-tory involving a citizen and a non-citizen, it exercised its power to regulate and require certain procedures and forms in celebration of marriages. (39 TTC §§ 51-53, 55)

4. Domestic Relations—Marriage—Validity

Requirement that there be solemnization of marriage between a citizen and non-citizen of Trust Territory by a person mentioned in statute in order to constitute a valid marriage is a mandatory condition. (39 TTC § 53)

5. Courts—High Court—Function of Appellate Division

It is not function of court to legislate and where statutes are clear and unambiguous, it is neither the court's right nor its duty to change them; and fact that Congress of Micronesia has imposed stricter procedural requirements in marriages involving non-citizen than in marriages involving citizens of Trust Territory does not permit court to change statutory requirements. (39 TTC §§ 51-53, 55)

6. Domestic Relations—Marriage--Validity

Citizen's argument on appeal, that her marriage to non-citizen outside statutorily prescribed procedure was solemnized by a feast and was consummated, that a child was born of the union, that the two lived together, and that therefore the spirit of the law, though not letter of the law, was met, and there was thus a valid marriage, could not be accepted. (39 TTR §§ 51-53; 55)
Counsel for Appellant: GERALD SECK, Micronesian Legal
Services Corporation
Before BURNETT, Chief Justice, BROWN, Associate Justice, and HEFNER, Associate Justice