Allowed

Samantha Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2022WP(C)/73/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought permission to register her marriage on a virtual mode due to COVID-19 travel restrictions preventing her fiancé from coming to India. The Court allowed the request subject to specific conditions for witness presence and identification.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of permitting solemnisation and registration of marriage via online mode subject to conditions including physical presence of witnesses, online identification of parties,

Samantha Varghese 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

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 17TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAMANTHA VARGHESE, AGED 27 YEARS

¶8

D/O. K.P VARGHESE, KODIYAN HOUSE, PUTHUKKAD P.O, THRISSUR
PIN 680 301

¶9

BY ADV P.K.PRIYA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THHIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

2 MARRIAGE OFFICER

¶14

SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, NELLAYI , THRISSUR, PIN 680 305

¶15

3 THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, (GOVERNMENT OF

¶16

INDIA), ELECTRONICS NIKETAN, 6,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003

¶17

4 THE SECRETARY

¶18

THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
J674 +54V, E B LOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,

¶19

NEW DELHI PIN 110 001

¶20

5 TOMY VARGHESE,AGED 59 YEARS S/O. LATE M.J VARGHESE, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, OPPOSITE SUNAHADOSE CHURCH, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 307

¶21

6 MERCY TOMY,AGED 52 YEARS W/O. TOMY VARGHESE, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, OPPOSITE SUNAHADOSE CHURCH, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 307

¶22

BY ADV N.P.ASHA R5 & R6

¶23

SRI.APPU PS, GP, SRI. MANU S. ASGI

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2022 2

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2022

¶28

The petitioner states that her marriage was decided to be conducted with Homy Tomy, son of the 5^th and 6^th respondents. The bridegroom Homy Tomy is working in New Zealand. After fixing the marriage, Homy Tomy returned to New Zealand on 22.02.2019

¶29

Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the said Homy Tomy could not come over to India. The petitioner therefore wanted to register her marriage under the Special Marriage Act. Even now, there are international travel restrictions, contends the petitioner and hence Sri. Homy Tomy is not in a position to be physically present in India for solemnisation of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act. According to the petitioner, in similar circumstances, this Court has permitted parties to register the marriage on virtual mode. Since the fiance of the petitioner is not in a position to come down to India in the near

¶30

WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2022 3

¶31

future, the petitioner may also be given the benefit of registration of marriage on virtual mode.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Ext.P2 application was received by the Marriage Officer only on 30.11.2021. However, this Court assumes that evenif the application was received only on 30.11.2021, the mandatory notice period is already over. The learned counsel representing the 5^th and 6^th respondents submits that the marriage has been fixed with the co-operation of both families and a permission to register the marriage on virtual mode will be a great relief to both the families.

¶33

In the circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner should be permitted to solemnise and register her marriage with Homy Tomy, son of the 5^th and 6^th respondents, through virtual mode.

¶34

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶35

I. The Marriage Officers under the Special Marriage Act is

¶36

WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2022 4

¶37

directed to solemnise marriage or register the marriage, as the case may be, through online subject to the conditions hereafter referred:

¶38

i. The witnesses required for solemnisation of marriage shall be present before the Marriage Officer.

¶39

ii. The witnesses shall identify the parties who are online. iii. The copies of passport or any other public documents in respect of the parties who appear online shall be provided to the Marriage Officer for identification by the Marriage Officer.

¶40

iv. Wherever signature of parties are required, that shall be affixed by the authorised Power of Attorney of the parties or any agent who produce any other official documents recognised under the Indian law on behalf of the parties who appeared online.

¶41

II. All other necessary formalities as required by law shall be complied with before solemnisation of marriage.

¶42

III. The Marriage Officer shall fix the date and time and convey

¶43

WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2022 5

¶44

the same to the parties in advance.

¶45

IV. The Marriage Officer is free to fix the mode of online platform.

¶46

V. The Marriage Officer is directed to comply with the directions as expeditiously as possible on completion of the statutory formalities.

¶47

VI. On solemnisation of marriage, the certificate of marriage

¶48

shall be issued in the manner as referred to in Section 13 of

¶49

the Special Marriage Act.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2022 6

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 73/2022

¶56

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶57

Exhibit P1PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE FUNCTION
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 30-11-2021
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CONSENT
FOR MARRIAGE GIVEN BY THE PARENTS OF THE
HOMY TOMY
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT DATED 30-11-2021
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 09-
09-2021 IN W.P(C) NO. 15244 OF 2021
PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Samantha Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samantha Varghese 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

Ann Thomas, Vs the Marriage Officer and Sub Registrar

Afsal a., Vs Union of India

Aroor Puthuvaranad Devaswom Private Trust Vs Kerala Bank(Erstwhile Alappuzha District Cooperative Bank Ltd.)

Soumya P.K Vs State of Kerala

Jayesh K Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

M-Star Hotels Palakkad Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala Financial Corporation