Allowed

Anju N. Thampan v. the Marriage Officer

Kerala HC8 Nov 2017WP(C)/35802/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition challenging rejection of special marriage application due to petitioner's intention to marry a Nepalese citizen. Court quashed rejection order, held Special Marriage Act permits marriage with foreign nationals, and directed issuance of marriage notice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of rejection set aside; direction to issue notice for marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Anju N. Thampan Vs the Marriage Officer — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/17TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 35802 of 2017 (A) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ANJU N. THAMPAN, D/O. NARAYANA THAMPAN M. A., MUNDANMANI HOUSE, CHALAKUDY P.O., ANAMALA, PIN-680 307.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY SRI.VISAKH ANTONY SRI.AUGUSTUS BINU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE MARRIAGE OFFICER, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, CHALAKUDI, THRISSUR, PIN-680 307.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KALYAN NAGAR, AYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. SURIM GEORGE IYPE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 35802 of 2017 (A)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

----------------------EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED ON THE ONLINE APPLICATION MADE FOR SPECIAL MARRIAGE DATED 26.10.2017.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23.09.2016.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S TO BE HUSBAND, MR. BIBEK KUMAR SHARMA.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2011 IN O.P.747/2011 PASSED BY FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE UNMARRIED CERTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2017 ISSUED BY GULARIYA MUNICIPALITY.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION WITH RESPECT SPECIAL MARRIAGE APPLICATION DATED 26.10.2017.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

W.P.(C).No.35802 of 2017-A

¶31

Dated this the 08^th day of November, 2017

¶32

The petitioner, an Indian citizen, desires to enter

¶33

into a marriage with one Bibek Kumar Sharma, who is a

¶34

Nepalese citizen. The petitioner, residing under the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent, made an application for contracting the said marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. An objection was raised by the 1^st respondent, allegedly on the ground that the marriage is intended to be

¶35

entered into with a foreign citizen and, hence, the provisions of the Special Marriage Act cannot be invoked. The impugned order is produced at Exhibit P6.

¶36

In fact, the said issue was already considered

¶37

WP(C).35802/2017

¶38

¶39

by this Court in Rajeev v. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT 578], which relied on a decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Marian Eva v. State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 1993 Himachal Pradesh 7]. The Court categorically found that the Special 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.

¶40

A reading of the provisions of the Special

¶41

Marriage Act would also indicate that, Section 4 contemplates 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.3-25537/00 dated 8.8.2014, which is referred to in Exhibit P6, the Government

¶42

WP(C).35802/2017

¶43

¶44

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.

¶45

In the present case, the petitioner, a citizen of

¶46

India, is a resident within the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent.

¶47

The Nepalese 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 Iran, there would be no requirement of informing such Marriage Officer, since the intending bride groom is a Nepalese citizen. In such circumstance, Exhibit P6 is set aside. The application of

¶48

the petitioner shall be accepted and notice shall be given by

¶49

WP(C).35802/2017

¶50

¶51

the 1^st respondent as required under the Act and the petitioner

¶52

permitted to contract the marriage as intended by him, which

¶53

shall be solemnised under the Act.

¶54

The writ petition is allowed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶57

jma

¶58

//true copy//

¶59

P.A to Judge

Anju N. Thampan v. the Marriage Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju N. Thampan v. the Marriage Officer

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

Prasanna Vs State of Kerala

Suji.S. Vs State of Kerala

Thiyancheri Gopalan Nambiar Vs Union of India

A.M.Joy Vs District Collector & District Magistrate

James P.T. Vs State of Kerala

Sandhya Kunjumon Vs the District Collector