Allowed

Kum.Shiya v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2017WP(C)/35240/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by a citizen of India seeking to marry a foreign national. The court held that the Special Marriage Act permits such marriages and directed the Sub Registrar to accept the application and issue notice.

What did the court decide?

The marriage application of the petitioner was accepted, and the respondent was directed to issue notice as required under the Act and permit the contraction of the marriage.

Kum.Shiya Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/12TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 35240 of 2017 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KUM.SHIYA, D/O. JOHNSON A.D, AGED 21 YEARS, AYNIKKAL PADIKKAL HOUSE,PAPPANCHALLA, MUTHALAMADA, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.RAVIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 506.

¶12

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

WP(C).No. 35240 of 2017 (D)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE	BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE	BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF JERMYMON REGI.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REGI.	CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATE OF JERMYMON
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REGI.	EXTRACT OF THE PASSPORT OF JERMYMON
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE OF MARRIAGE UNDER ACT DATED 28/10/2	ONLINE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION SECTION 5 OF THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE 017 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS NIL ---------

¶18

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶19

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶20

=====================

¶21

W.P.(C)No.35240 of 2017 - D

¶22

=========================

¶23

Dated this the 03^rd day of November, 2017

¶24

Judgment

¶25

The petitioner, an Indian citizen, desires to enter into a

¶26

marriage with one Jermymon Regi, a foreign national. The petitioner, residing under the jurisdiction of the Marriage Officer/Sub Registrar, the 2^nd respondent herein, made an application for contracting the said marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. An objection was raised by the 2^nd respondent, allegedly on the ground that the marriage is intended to be entered into with a foreign citizen and, hence, the provisions of the Special Marriage Act cannot be invoked.

¶27

In fact, the said issue was already considered by this

¶28

Court in Rajeev v. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT 578], which relied on a decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in

¶29

Marian Eva v. State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 1993 Himachal

¶30

Pradesh 7]. The Court categorically found that the Special

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.35240/2017

¶33

Marriage Act does not contain any prohibition for solemnisation of the marriage, if one of the parties is a foreigner. This Court has also reiterated the said position in W.P.(C) No.13276 of 2015, vide judgment dated 01.06.2015.

¶34

A reading of the provisions of the Special Marriage Act would also indicate that, Section 4 contemplates that a marriage between “any two persons” could be solemnized under the Act; if the conditions specified therein are fulfilled. It is also relevant that, by Circular No.R.R.6.23638/14 dated 23.10.2014, the Government had answered a clarification made by the Inspector General of Registration and specifically indicated after citing the aforesaid decisions that the word “person” used in Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act does not indicate either one of the parties or both the parties should be citizens of India.

¶35

In the present case, the petitioner, a citizen of India, is a resident within the jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent. The

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No.35240/2017

¶38

U.S.A citizen, who she intends to marry, is not having permanent residence in India and even if a Marriage Officer is appointed by the Government of India in its Embassy at U.S.A, there would be no requirement of informing such Marriage Officer, since the intending groom is a U.S.A citizen. In such circumstance, the application of the petitioner shall be accepted and notice shall be given by the 2^nd respondent as required under the Act and the petitioner permitted to contract the marriage as intended by him, which shall be solemnised under the Act.

¶39

The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

SB/03/11/2017

¶42

// true copy //

¶43

P.A to Judge

Kum.Shiya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum.Shiya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rosamma Vs District Collector

Reena Bobby Vs All India Counsel for the Technical Education

Krishnankutty Eacheran Vs Inspector General of Registrations

M.M.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Muhammed Aslam Vs the Regional Officer Central Board of Secondary Education

Tankamma Samuel Vs District Collector