Allowed

Suresh .K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2017WP(C)/37398/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an Indian citizen, sought to marry a Sri Lankan national under the Special Marriage Act. The 3rd respondent objected on the ground that the Act applies only to Indian citizens. The Single Judge held that 'person' includes foreign nationals, set aside the objection, and permitted the marriage.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 set aside; petitioner's application accepted; notice to be given by the 3rd respondent; petitioner permitted to contract the marriage.

Suresh .K. 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

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/30TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 37398 of 2017 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURESH .K., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, LEKSHAM VEEDU, HOUSE NO.16, PULLATTUKARI, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 582.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.J.G.SYAMNATH SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.BASIL AJITH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR.P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 035.

¶12

3. THE MARRIAGE OFFICER AND SUB-REGISTRAR, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 582.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SURIN GEORGE IYPE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 37398 of 2017 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT	P1:	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER’S PASSPORT NO.K7484926.
EXHIBIT	P2:	TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE NO.D0020270-1409181 DATED 19.9.2014 OF PETITIONER’S FIRST WIFE.
EXHIBIT	P3:	TRUE COPY OF PAGES OF MS.THAMARERI KALEI PERUMAL’S SRI.LANKAN PASSPORT NO.N5954269.
EXHIBIT	P4:	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION NO.P6806342 DATED 19.9.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS FIANCEE FOR CIVIL MARRIAGE.
EXHIBIT	P5:	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 19.9.2017 ISSUED FOR PAYMENT OF FEES FOR SOLEMNISATION OF CIVIL MARRIAGE.
EXHIBIT	P6:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION C.NO.69/2017 DATED 25.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7:	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8.6.2015 IN WPC.16350/2015.
EXHIBIT	P8:	TRUE COPY OF VISA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR PASSPORT NO.K7484926.
EXHIBIT	P9:	TRUE COPY OF BOOK FLIGHT TICKET FOR HIS JOURNEY ON 21.11.2017.
RESPOND	ENTS'	EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(C)No.37398 of 2017- Y

¶26

========================== Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2017

¶27

Judgment

¶28

The petitioner, an Indian citizen, desires to enter into

¶29

a marriage with one Thamarei Kalei Perumal, a foreign national. The petitioner, residing under the jurisdiction of the Marriage Officer/Sub Registrar, the 3^rd respondent herein, made an application for contracting the said marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. An objection was raised by the 3^rd 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. The impugned order is produced at Ext.P6.

¶30

In fact, the said issue was already considered 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

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.37398/2017

¶33

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.

¶34

A reading of the provisions of the Special

¶35

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, which is referred to in Ext.P6, 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

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No.37398/2017

¶38

of India.

¶39

In the present case, the petitioner, a citizen of

¶40

India, is a resident within the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent. The Sri Lankan citizen, who he 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 Sri Lanka, there would be no requirement of informing such Marriage Officer, since the intending bride is a Sri Lankan citizen. In such circumstance, Ext.P6 is set aside. The application of the petitioner shall be accepted and notice shall

¶41

be given by the 3^rd 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.

¶42

The writ petition is allowed.

¶43

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

SB/07/11/2017

¶45

// true copy // P.A to Judge

Suresh .K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh .K. 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

Swapna George Vs State of Kerala

Sheethal Thomas Vs All India Council for Technical Education, Represented by Its Secretary

Lethika Bhai.C Vs State of Kerala

Ashika Marium Joju (Minor) Vs the Secretary, the Central Board of Secondary Education

Fathima P Vs State of Kerala

Sarojini Divakaran Vs Unin of India