The major archiepiscopal tribunal is a collegiate tribunal, erected in accordance with c.1063 of CCEO on 1 September 1994, to exercise the ministry of justice within the territory of the Syro-Malabar Church. It serves especially as a tribunal of appeals from metropolitan tribunals, though it is competent also to adjudicate cases in the first instance according to the norm of law. It is subject not only to the vigilance of the supreme tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Rome, which watches over the exercise of justice in the Catholic Church all over the world in the name of the Roman Pontiff, but also to the immediate vigilance of the general moderator of the administration of justice of the Syro-Malabar Church in accordance with c.1062 of CCEO and the norms of the statutes of the superior tribunal of the Syro-Malabar Church.
TRIBUNAL MINISTERS
The Ordinary Tribunal has a President, one Vice-President, and ten judges. There are four defenders of bond, two promoters of Justice and one notary. There are also advocates accredited to the Major Archiepiscopal Tribunal. All the judges and defenders of bond of the Major Archiepiscopal Ordinary Tribunal have the degree of doctorate in Canon Law. Most of the tribunal members have other ecclesiastical offices.
TRIBUNAL MINISTERS- 2019 July |
I. PRESIDENT (Judicial Vicar)
1. Dr. Thomas Adoppillil |
|
II. VICE-PRESIDENTS (Adj. Judicial Vicar) | |
2. Dr. Joseph Varanath
|
 |
III.JUDGES: | |
3. Dr. Joseph Pathiyamoola MCBS |
|
4. Dr. Varghese Palathingal |
 |
5. Dr. John Kochupurackal CST |
 |
6. Dr. Joseph Thoompunkal |
 |
7. Dr. Berchmans Kodackal |
 |
8. Dr. James Thalachelloor |
 |
9. Dr. Vincent Chittilappilly |
 |
10. Dr. Mathew Changankary |
 |
11. Dr. Thomas Thengumpally |
 |
12. Dr. Joseph Mukaleparambil |
 |
IV. DEFENDERS OF BOND | |
1. Dr. Mani Kuthodiputhenpurayil CST |
 |
2. Dr. Joseph Velinjalil |
 |
3. Dr. John Chennakuzhy |
 |
4. Dr. Sebastian Muttamthottil MCBS |
 |
Address of the Tribunal
MOUNT ST. THOMAS, P.B.NO.3110, Kakkanad P.O. Kochi 682 030, KERALA, INDIA
Telephone : 0091- 484-2424768, 2424780, 6461269, Fax : 0091- 484-2422727, E mail : mattribunal@gmail.com
|

The Major Archiepiscopal Tribunal was erected on September 1, 1994 as per the prescription of CCEO canon 1063§1. This tribunal is the appellate tribunal in second and further grades, with judges serving in rotation, for cases already decided in the lower tribunals of the Syro-Malabar Church within its proper territory. It is governed by the statutes.
This tribunal is also competent to judge in first and further grades, with judges serving in rotation, the cases:
1. of exarchs and delegates of the patriarch who are not bishops
2. of physical or juridic persons immediately subject to the patriarch
3. of institutes of consecrated life of pontifical right
4. of superiors of institutes of consecrated life of pontifical right who do not have a superior within the same institute who possesses judicial power;
5. reserved to this tribunal by particular law

TRIBUNAL ACTIVITIES
The great majority of the cases dealt with by the Ordinary Tribunal are marriage nullity cases. From September 1, 1994 till December 31, 2013 this tribunal handled marriage 2087 nullity cases.

Major topics of the recent issue of the periodical are: An Ecclesiology of Communion from the Eastern and Ecumenical Perspectives, Prospects for the New Evangelization of Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church, Eparchial Bishop/Local Hierarch and the Religious, Marriages of Unbaptized Persons: Misapprehensions and the Right approach of the Church, Sharing Spiritual Activities and Resources between the Catholic Church and the Non-Catholic Churches, The Office of the Protosyncellus, Canonical Basis of Statutes and Constitutions according to CCEO and CIC, and Particular Law of the Syro-Malabar Church: An Evaluation of the Present Stage.
 |
Title |
: |
Eastern Legal Thought |
Volume |
: |
1 |
Language |
: |
English |
Price |
: |
200 |
|
 |
Title |
: |
Eastern Legal Thought |
Volume |
: |
2 |
Language |
: |
English |
Price |
: |
200 |
|

REPORT OF THE ORDINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE YEAR 2013
Activity Of The Tribunal In Second Instance
CAUSES OF MATRIMONIAL NULLITY HANDLED AFTER AN ORDINARY PROCESS IN FIRST INSTANCE
1 |
Causes pending at the beginning of the year |
29 |
2 |
Causes introduced this year |
313 |
3 |
Decrees of ratification (total number) |
279 |
4 |
Grounds of nullity considered in the decrees (If a decision considered several grounds of nullity, these are to be indicated separately; thus the total number of decisions under 4 may be greater than that under 3)
|
|
CCEO c. 801 (Impotence): |
01 |
CCEO c. 818,1° (Lack of sufficient use of reason): |
-- |
CCEO c. 818,2° (Grave lack of discretion) |
32 |
CCEO c. 818,3° (Inability to assume): |
25 |
CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality): |
88 |
CCEO c. 821 (Fraud) |
47 |
CCEO cc. 820§2, 821 (Fraudulent error) |
-- |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Simulation total) |
13 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against fidelity) |
26 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against children) |
06 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of the spouses) |
20 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against indissolubility) |
06 |
CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear) |
44 |
CCEO c. 826 (Condition): |
02 |
5 |
Sentences given (after an ordinary examination): |
29 |
a) In favour of nullity ("constat de nullitate", at least on one ground ) |
16 |
b) In favour of the bond ("non constat de nullitate": on every ground alleged) |
13 |
6 |
Grounds of nullity considered in the sentences sentences (if a sentence considered several grounds of nullity, these are to be indicated separately; thus the number of decisions under of 6 may be greater than the sum of 5a and 5b) |
AFFIRMATIVE (constat de nullitate) |
NEGATIVE (non constat de nullitate) |
CCEO c. 818,2 (Grave lack of discretion) |
04 |
02 |
CCEO c. 818,3º (Inability to assume) |
01 |
01 |
CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality) |
04 |
02 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Total simulation) |
04 |
02 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against fidelity): |
-- |
02 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of spouses): |
03 |
01 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against indissolubility) |
-- |
-- |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against children): |
-- |
-- |
CCEO c. 821 (Fraud) |
01 |
-- |
CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear) |
04 |
02 |
CCEO c. 826 (Condition) |
-- |
01 |
|
7 |
Causes abandoned |
|
a) Through renunciation (due to the death of the respondent): |
Nil |
b) Through abatement (Peremptio) |
Nil |
8 |
Causes pending at the end of the year |
34 |
Activity Of The Tribunal In Third & Subsequent Instances
CAUSES OF MATRIMONIAL NULLITY HANDLED AFTER A PROCESS IN SECOND INSTANCE
1 |
Causes pending at the beginning of the year |
02 |
2 |
Causes introduced this year |
32 |
3 |
Decrees of ratification (total number) |
19 |
4 |
Grounds of nullity considered in the decrees: (If a decision considered several grounds of nullity, these are to be indicated separately; thus the total number of decisions under 4 may be greater than that under 3)
|
|
CCEO c. 818,2° (Grave lack of discretion) |
02 |
CCEO c. 818,3° (Inability to assume) |
-- |
CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality) |
09 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of the spouses) |
01 |
CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear) |
03 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Total simulation) |
03 |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against children) |
03 |
|
|
5 |
Sentences given (after an ordinary examination) |
10 |
a) In favour of nullity ("constat de nullitate", at least on one ground) |
09 |
b) In favour of the bond ("non constat de nullitate": on every ground alleged) |
01 |
6 |
Grounds of nullity considered in the sentences sentences (if a sentence considered several grounds of nullity, these are to be indicated separately; thus the number of decisions under of 6 may be greater than the sum of 5a and 5b) |
AFFIRMATIVE (constat de nullitate) |
NEGATIVE (non constat de nullitate) |
CCEO c. 818,2° (Grave lack of discretion) |
02 |
-- |
CCEO c. 818,3º (Inability to assume) |
01 |
-- |
CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality): |
04 |
-- |
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of the spouses) |
01 |
-- |
CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear) |
01 |
-- |
7 |
Causes abandoned |
|
a) Through renunciation (due to the death of the respondent): |
Nil |
b) Through abatement (Peremptio) |
Nil |
8 |
Decrees of Nullity of Sentence: |
Nil |
9 |
Causes pending at the end of the year |
05 |
5.Activities of the Lower Tribunals in the Year 2018
There are seventeen eparchies in four metropolitan provinces and one archeparchy within the proper territory of the Syro Malabar Church. All the four metropolitan provinces have metropolitan tribunals and they function as the tribunals of appeal in the second instance as per c. 1064§1. The metropolitan tribunal of Kottayam judges cases only of the Archeparchy of the metropolitan of Kottayam. The eparchies of Belthangady, Thuckaly and Bhadravathi have single judge tribunals. The cases of the eparchy of Ramanathapuram are handled by the eparchial tribunal of Palakkad.
The activities of the eparchial and metropolitan tribunals during the year 2018 are briefly given in the following tables: :
Cases Processed by the Tribunals of the First Instance during the Year 2018 |
Tribunals |
Cases for Process |
Cases Disposed |
|
Sl. No. |
Eparchial and Metropolitan Tribunals
(First Instance) |
Cases Pending |
Cases Introduced |
Total |
Affirmative Sentences |
Negative Sentences |
Total Sentences |
Cases Abandoned |
Penal Cases |
Ratum et non-consum |
Total |
Cases Pending |
1 |
Belthangady |
09 |
21 |
30 |
21 |
- |
21 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
09 |
2 |
Bhadravathi |
04 |
- |
04 |
02 |
- |
02 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
02 |
3 |
Changanacherry |
56 |
108 |
164 |
123 |
07 |
130 |
02 |
- |
- |
02 |
32 |
4 |
Ernakulam-Ang. |
37 |
81 |
118 |
93 |
- |
93 |
09 |
- |
- |
09 |
16 |
5 |
Idukki |
12 |
28 |
40 |
21 |
- |
21 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
19 |
6 |
Irinjalakkuda |
110 |
66 |
176 |
87 |
04 |
91 |
11 |
- |
04 |
15 |
70 |
7 |
Kanjirappally |
26 |
26 |
52 |
35 |
- |
35 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
17 |
8 |
Kothamangalam |
40 |
41 |
81 |
32 |
01 |
33 |
- |
- |
01 |
01 |
47 |
9 |
Kottayam |
03 |
25 |
28 |
27 |
- |
27 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
01 |
10 |
Mananthavady |
06 |
50 |
56 |
41 |
- |
41 |
05 |
- |
- |
05 |
10 |
11 |
Mandya |
01 |
12 |
13 |
06 |
- |
06 |
02 |
- |
- |
02 |
05 |
12 |
Palai |
42 |
67 |
109 |
68 |
05 |
73 |
03 |
- |
- |
03 |
33 |
13 |
Palakkad |
22 |
27 |
49 |
20 |
- |
20 |
03 |
- |
- |
03 |
26 |
/*
14 |
Ramanathapuram |
06 |
07 |
13 |
03 |
- |
03 |
03 |
- |
- |
03 |
07 |
*/
15 |
Tellicherry |
35 |
106 |
141 |
72 |
01 |
73 |
20 |
- |
- |
20 |
48 |
16 |
Thamarassery |
24 |
37 |
61 |
40 |
- |
40 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
21 |
17 |
Thuckalay |
03 |
03 |
06 |
03 |
- |
03 |
01 |
- |
- |
01 |
02 |
18 |
Trichur |
70 |
93 |
163 |
80 |
02 |
82 |
07 |
- |
- |
07 |
74 |
|
Total |
500 |
791 |
1291 |
771 |
20 |
791 |
63 |
- |
05 |
68 |
432 |
Tribunal records show that there has been a definite hike in the number of cases in most of the tribunals. This hike may be due to the increased general awareness among the people of the new provisions in the motu proprio which make the nullity procedure of marriage cases more simple, easy and quick.
Cases Processed by the Tribunals of the Second Instance during the Year 2018 |
Tribunals |
Cases for Process |
Cases Disposed |
|
Sl. No. |
Metropolitan Tribunals
(Second Instance) |
Cases Pending |
Cases Introduced |
Total |
Decrees of Ratification |
Affirmative Sentences |
Negative Sentences |
Cases Abandoned |
Total |
Cases Pending |
1 |
Changanacherry |
03 |
08 |
11 |
- |
07 |
02 |
02 |
11 |
00 |
2 |
Ernakulam-Ang. |
- |
01 |
01 |
01 |
- |
- |
- |
01 |
00 |
3 |
Tellicherry |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
00 |
00 |
4 |
Trichur |
02 |
01 |
03 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
03 |
|
Total |
05 |
10 |
15 |
01 |
07 |
02 |
02 |
12 |
03 |
|