VATSALA Vs. SUB REGISTRAR AND MARRIAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition gives rise to a short but interesting point of law, namely, whether a foreigner can get married in India with a girl of Indian Nationality under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), This is a matter of first impression so far as this court is concerned and the counsel were unable to present before me any precedent even of any other High Court in India on this aspect.

(2.) The brief facts germane for the decision of the point at issue briefly stated are : The first petitioner Kumari Vatsala intends to marry the second petitioner Michael Caird, who is a citizen of United Kingdom, residing in Bangalore. He is aged about 30 years. The petitioners decided to solemnize their marriage under the Act and therefore gave a notice under S. 6 of the said Act of their intention to solemnize the marriage. Notice was given on 24-11-1980. The first respondent, namely, the Sub-Registrar and Marriage Officer, received the said notice. Thereafter the first respondent addressed a letter dated 24-12-1980 to the second respondent and sent a copy of the said letter to the second petitioner. A true copy of the said letter is produced at annexure 'A' in the writ petition. By that letter the first respondent opined that the provisions of Act apply only to marriage between Indian Nationals and not between foreign nationals and Indian Nationals and therefore he solicited clarification from the second respondent, namely, the Chief Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, whether the marriage in question could be solemnized under the Act as the bride-groom is a foreign national. The second respondent by his letter dated 26-12-1980 wrote to the first respondent that in view of S. 4( ) of the Act, both parties should be citizens of India and domiciled in the said territories and therefore the marriage could not be solemnized under the Act. A copy of that letter was forwarded by the first respondent to the present first petitioner for information. It is produced in the writ petition at annexure ,B'. Thus the writ petitioners were informed that their marriage could not be solemnized under the provisions of the Act, in the circumstances. It is against that communication refusing to solemnize and register the marriage under the provisions of the aforesaid Act that the present writ petition is directed.

(3.) It is prayed in the writ petition that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to solemnize the marriage of the petitioners in . accordance with the provisions of Act. The point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this writ petition is whether the marriage can be solemnized of an Indian Citizen with a foreign national in India under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.