Dismissed

Ajith Balan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022WP(C)/6538/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition challenging the refusal to register a marriage. The Court held that the appeal failed because the petitioner and fiancee were not residents in India for the 30 days immediately preceding the notice, violating Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court noted that attestation of photographs at registration would have been a

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the liberty to apply afresh after satisfying residency conditions.

Ajith Balan Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022/1ST CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 6538 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

AJITH BALAN, AGED 29 YEARS, ETTUNGAPADY HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, KANJOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683 575 PRESENTLY WORKING AND RESIDING AT UAE.

¶7

BY ADVS. S.SAJU A.V.SAJAN ANJANADEVI.G

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, (REGISTRATION) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶10

2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶11

3 THE MARRIAGE OFFICER AND SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, SREEMOOLANAGARAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683 580.

¶12

SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL, G.P.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.6538/2022

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2022

¶18

The petitioner who is a citizen of India is before this Court seeking to direct the 3^rd respondent to accept Ext.P3 notice of intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act from the petitioner and process the marriage registration forthwith without insisting for attestation of Ext.P3 notice by a Gazetted Officer.

¶19

The petitioner submits that he and Anju Johnson decided to get themselves married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They submitted application and a notice of intended marriage was issued as is evidenced by Ext.P3. After issuing the notice of intended marriage, the Marriage Officer is refusing to solemnise/register the marriage on the ground that the petitioner has not produced photographs of the fiancee duly attested by a Gazetted

WP(C) No.6538/2022

Officer.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P9 judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.28730/2018 and contended that the attestation of photographs of the parties by a Gazetted Officer can be produce even at the time of actual solemnisation/registration of the marriage. For the simple reason that parties could not produce attested

¶24

photographs at the time of giving intended marriage, the 3^rd respondent need not decline solemnisation/registration of the marriage.

¶25

The learned Government Pleader filed a Statement and contested the writ petition on behalf of the 3^rd respondent. The Statement filed by the 3^rd respondent proceeds to disclose that the parties to the marriage have to produce along with the application two sets of their passport size photographs duly attested by a Gazetted Officer for affixing the same in the marriage notice book and marriage

WP(C) No.6538/2022

certificate book.

The 3^rd respondent further stated that as per Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, when a marriage is intended to be solemnised, the parties to the marriage shall give notice in writing in the form specified in the 2^nd Schedule, to the Marriage Officer of the District in which at least one of the parties of the marriage is resided, for a period of not less than 30 days immediately preceding the date on which such notice is given. In the present case, the petitioner and his fiancee were residing abroad and they were not in a position to reside for a period of not less than 30 days preceding the date of notice of intended marriage. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent is barred from solemnisation/ registration of the marriage of the petitioner with aforesaid Anju Johnson.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader

¶31

WP(C) No.6538/2022

¶32

¶33

representing the respondents.

¶34

The petitioner states that the marriage is not being solemnised/registered for the reason that the petitioner has not produced photographs of the parties duly attested by a Gazetted Officer. Assuming for argument sake that the petitioner can be permitted to produce the photographs duly attested at the time of registration of marriage, the fact remains that the petitioner and the fiancee are not residing in the area for the last 30 days on the date of submission of the application.

¶35

Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954

¶36

reads as follows:

¶37

“5. Notice of intended marriage

¶38

When a marriage is intended to be solemnised under this Act, the parties to the marriage shall give notice thereof in writing in the form specified in the Second Schedule to the Marriage Officer of the district in which at least one of the parties to the marriage has resided for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which such notice is given.”

¶39

WP(C) No.6538/2022

¶40

¶41

Both the petitioner and Anju Johnson were not residents in India for the last 30 days preceding the date from which the intended notice was given. Therefore, the petitioner's marriage with Anju Johnson pursuant to Ext.P3 cannot be solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, in view of the specific mandate of Section 5. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply afresh for solemnisation/registration of marriage after satisfying the conditions prescribed in Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

¶42

The writ petition is dismissed with the said observation.

¶43

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd/23.03.2022

WP(C) No.6538/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6538/2022

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit-P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION
	FOR SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE
	SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
	THE 3RD RESPONDENT,
	SREEMOOLANAGARAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE DATED 05.02.2022
Exhibit-P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR
	SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE AGAINST
	THE APPLICATION FOR NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE DATED NIL
Exhibit-P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE UPLOADED BY THE
	PETITIONER AND SMT. ANJU JOHNSON
	DATED 07.02.2022 IN THE WEBSITE WWW.KERALAREGISTRATION.GOV.IN/PEARL PUBLIC
Exhibit-P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED DATED 08.02.2022 AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF FEES OF RS.110/- BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONERâ€™S FIANCÃ©E SMT. ANJU JOHNSON
Exhibit-P8	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONERâ€™S FIANCÃ©E SMT. ANJU JOHNSON
Exhibit-P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
	03.09.2018 IN WP(C) NO. 28730 OF 2018

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶51

WP(C) No.6538/2022

¶52

¶53

Annexure R3(a) TRUE COPY OF G.O. (P)NO.4/2018/LAW/TVM DATED 12.04.2018. Annexure R3(b) TRUE COPY OF ARTICLE DATED 22.05.2018.

Ajith Balan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith Balan 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

Biju P. Vs Dr. Balpreeth Singh IAS

Akshay P.Aji Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Haridas C.N Vs State of Kerala

V.I.John, Vs State of Kerala

Abish Jose Vs Registrar of Companies (Roc), Ernakulam

Al-Yasar Arafath, Vs State of Kerala