Ameen Grewal and Amarjot Singh Bal tied the knot during a marriage ceremony in Richmond on Aug. 20. After the ceremony, they went to a local park for wedding photos to be taken, but a serious argument broke out between them, with family members present. Grewal became “very upset,” immediately left the park and abandoned the rest of the wedding activities, telling Bal that she did not want the marriage to continue. But B.C. Supreme Court Justice Frits Verhoeven declined to grant an annulment of the Grewal-Bal marriage.

RICHMOND – It’s not that easy to call it quits even if you call it splits on marriage day – that’s the message from the judge to an Indo-Canadian couple who sought annulment after ending their marriage during a tussle during the usual wedding photos at a park

Ameen Grewal and Amarjot Singh Bal tied the knot during a marriage ceremony in Richmond on Aug. 20. 

After the ceremony, they went to a local park for wedding photos to be taken, but a serious argument broke out between them, with family members present, according to affidavits filed in court, reported Vancouver Sun. Grewal became “very upset,” immediately left the park and abandoned the rest of the wedding activities, telling Bal that she did not want the marriage to continue.

Rather than seek a divorce, the couple applied to the court for a declaration that the marriage be pronounced null and void.

The application sought an annulment by way of a so-called desk order — an order by the judge after supporting materials were filed and without a hearing of any kind.

But B.C. Supreme Court Justice Frits Verhoeven declined to grant an annulment of the Grewal-Bal marriage.The judge found that it was not appropriate for the application to proceed in that manner and added that the materials filed do not support an annulment.

Verhoeven said there was no evidence that would support the conclusion that the marriage was void.

“There is no evidence to suggest that the parties were not capable of being married to each other, or that their consent to the marriage was invalid, or that the marriage ceremony itself did not comply with the formal requirements pursuant to the Marriage Act,” said the judge.

“In fact, the evidence they had adduced shows exactly the opposite. There is a presumption of valid marriage with consent if the marriage ceremony followed the requisite formalities.”

The judge noted that orders for divorce are commonly granted as desk orders with the evidentiary and procedural requirements for the order being quite clear.

“However, given the findings of fact that are required in order to grant a judgment annulling a marriage, I suggest that an application for a desk order annulling a marriage is almost certainly doomed to fail,” he said.

“Therefore, the more appropriate practice would be to commence an action, and to proceed to a trial, or perhaps a summary trial. Applications for annulment by way of desk order are likely to be a waste of time and expense for the parties, and a waste of judicial resources, as in this case,” reported Vancouver Sun.