Disposed

Sarath B.Sukukumar v. the Marriage Officer for Thiruvananthapuram District and Sasthamangalam

Kerala HC8 Aug 2022WP(C)/25573/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the plea to waive the 30-day notice period under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act due to technical glitches. It directed that the notice period be awaited and permitted the foreign-based petitioner to appear online for solemnisation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions to await the 30-day period and permit online appearance for the petitioner abroad.

Sarath B.Sukukumar Vs the Marriage Officer for… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 25573 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SARATH B.SUKUKUMAR

¶8

AGED 25 YEARS

¶9

S/O.D.K.SUKUKUMAR, SUKUVIHAR, INDIRA NAGAR ROAD, NN60, NEETHI NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

¶10

2 VISHNA THAZHE PUTHUSSERY

¶11

AGED 26 YEARS

¶12

D/O.PUSHPAKARAN P., THAZHE PUTHUSSERY, KODUVALLY, KIZHAKKOTH P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 572.

¶13

BY ADV. TOMS MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 THE MARRIAGE OFFICER FOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT AND SASTHAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 010.

¶16

2 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶17

KERALA - 695 035.

¶18

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶19

BY ADV. P.S.APPU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO.25573 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 08^th day of August, 2022

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking waiver of the

¶26

mandatory period of 30 days after publication of the notice of intended marriage under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. According to the petitioners, they had attempted to submit the notice of intended marriage through online mode on 14.06.2022, but due to system failure, the process could be completed only on 13.07.2022. It is the petitioners’ case that, had the application been accepted at the first instance, the 30 days period would be over by now. The delay in submission not being for reasons attributable to the petitioners, they are liable to be exempted from the mandatory period of 30 days of notice prescribed in Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, prayer for exemption is necessitated in view of the fact that the 2^nd

¶28

WP(C) NO.25573 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

petitioner has to return to the United Kingdom, where he is employed.

¶31

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the requirement of 30 days notice under Section 5 cannot be waived and, if need be, the marriage can be solemnised online.

¶32

As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the reason that one of the intending spouses has to leave the Country is not a ground for waiving the notice period. The issue can be resolved by permitting the petitioners to solemnise their marriage, with the 2^nd petitioner appearing through virtual mode.

¶33

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, with the following directions;

¶34

(i) After expiry of the 30 days notice period, the Marriage Officer shall intimate the date and time for solemnisation/registration of the marriage to the petitioners.

¶35

(ii) In case the 2^nd petitioner is abroad and unable

¶36

WP(C) NO.25573 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

to be physically present before the Marriage Officer, he shall be permitted to appear through online mode on the specified date and time.

¶39

(iii) The 1^st petitioner and authorised Power-ofAttorney holder of the 2^nd petitioner shall be physically present before the Marriage Officer along with the requisite number of witnesses.

¶40

(iv) All necessary documents for identification of parties shall be made available to the Marriage Officer in advance.

¶41

(v) Wherever, signature of the 2^nd petitioner is to be affixed, the authorised Power-of-Attorney

¶42

holder shall be permitted to do that.

¶43

(vi).. All conditions necessary for solemnisation/ registration of marriage shall be complied with by the parties.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/8-8

WP(C) NO.25573 OF 2022

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25573/2022

¶51

PETITION	ERS’	EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER D BROOMFIELD HOS	THE ATED PITA	APPOINTMENT LETTER OF THE 2ND 27/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE L IN UK.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF T VISAS & IMMIGR	TH HE ATIO	E CERTIFICATE OF SPONSORSHIP 2ND PETITIONER UNDER THE UK N DATED 06/07/2022.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF ISSUED BY DIA DATED 26/07/20	TH L A 22.	E TRAVEL CONFIRMATION TICKET FLIGHT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF WITH REGARD T RESPONDENT.	THE O T	ONLINE NEWS DATED 28/05/2022 HE SERVER FAILURE OF THE 3RD
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF	THE	ONLINE NEWS DATED 06/07/2022
		WITH REGARD RESPONDENTS.	TO	THE SERVER FAILURE OF THE
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF	THE	ONLINE NEWS DATED 11/07/2022
		WITH REGARD RESPONDENT.	TO	THE SERVE CRASH IN THE 3RD
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY O MARRIAGE HAVIN IN THE FORM UNDER SECTION 1954.	F T G CL SPEC 5	HE NOTICE OF THE INTENDED IENT IP ADDRESS 103.170.55.18 IFIED IN THE SECOND SCHEDULE OF THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY SOLEMNIZATION ISSUED BY THE	OF OF 1ST	THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR MARRIAGE DATED 13/07/2022 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF INTENDED MARR SPECIAL MARRIA	THE IAGE GE A	ONLINE PROCESSED NOTICE OF UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE CT 1954 DATED 13/07/2022.
EXHIBIT	P10	TRUE COPY OF T DATED 28/03/20	HE 22 H	PASSPORT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AVING NO.V 8781536.
EXHIBIT	P11	TRUE COPY OF T DATED 04/06/20	HE 20 H	PASSPORT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AVING NO.U 4559802.

¶52

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶53

TRUE COPY

¶54

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sarath B.Sukukumar v. the Marriage Officer for Thiruvananthapuram District and Sasthamangalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarath B.Sukukumar v. the Marriage Officer for Thiruvananthapuram District and Sasthamangalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Joseph Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

T.K.Kareem Vs Smt.Surya Thankappan

K.Aravindan Vs State of Kerala

Mariyamma Joseph Vs Insurance Ombudsman

Husain.M Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality

K.C.Parvathy Vs the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority