## Facts

- The parties and their parents were domiciled in New Jersey.
- The parties traveled to Indiana to marry because they believed it was “the quickest place,” then immediately returned to New Jersey and established their home there.
- The marriage occurred on April 23, 1954, in Indiana, where a 16-year-old female was generally capable of marriage, though parental consent was required to obtain a license if under 18.
- The wife was 16 at the time of the marriage.
- A child was born to the parties on February 22, 1955.
- The husband was later incarcerated at Bordentown Reformatory for automobile-theft convictions.
- The wife filed an action in New Jersey seeking annulment under N.J.S. 2A:34-1(e), asserting she was under 18 at marriage, did not confirm the marriage after reaching 18, and that annulment would not be against the child’s best interests.
- The husband was served but did not answer or contest the action.
- The trial court found the statutory factual elements were satisfied, including that annulment would be in the child’s best interests, but dismissed on conflict-of-laws grounds because the marriage was valid where celebrated.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey may annul a marriage of New Jersey domiciliaries celebrated in another state and valid there, based on the wife’s nonage under N.J.S. 2A:34-1(e).
2. Whether comity and the general rule recognizing marriages valid where celebrated bar annulment when the parties left New Jersey to evade New Jersey’s stricter age policy and promptly returned to live in New Jersey.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and the Chancery Division.
- The court held New Jersey could grant annulment under N.J.S. 2A:34-1(e) despite the marriage’s validity under Indiana law.
- The matter was remanded for entry of a judgment of annulment consistent with the statute.

## Legal Principles

- A marriage valid where celebrated is generally recognized as valid elsewhere, but the rule is not absolute.
- A forum may refuse recognition when the marriage contravenes a strong and clearly expressed public policy of the forum, particularly where the forum is the parties’ domicile.
- N.J.S. 2A:34-1(e) expresses New Jersey’s policy permitting a wife to obtain a judgment of nullity for a marriage entered while she was under 18, if she did not confirm after reaching 18, and—if a child was born—if annulment is not against the child’s best interests.
- Comity is discretionary and does not compel application of another state’s marriage-validating law when New Jersey has the dominant interest in regulating the marital status of its domiciliaries.

## Conclusion

The court permitted annulment under New Jersey’s nonage annulment statute for a marriage celebrated in Indiana by New Jersey domiciliaries who returned immediately to New Jersey, holding that New Jersey’s stated public policy and dominant domicile interest outweighed comity and the general place-of-celebration validity rule.


Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 26 N.J. 370, 140 A.2d 65 (N.J. 1958)