ANJU N. THAMPAN Vs. THE MARRIAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Indian citizen, desires to enter into a marriage with one Bibek Kumar Sharma, who is a Nepalese citizen. The petitioner, residing under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, made an application for contracting the said marriage under the Special Marriage Act , 1954. An objection was raised by the 1st 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 Exhibit P6.

(2.) 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 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.

(3.) A reading of the provisions of the Special Marriage Act would also indicate that, Section 4 contemplates 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.3-25537/00 dated 8.8.2014, which is referred to in Exhibit 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 of India. 5. In the present case, the petitioner, a citizen of India, is a resident within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. The Nepalese citizen, who she 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 Iran, there would be no requirement of informing such Marriage Officer, since the intending bride groom is a Nepalese citizen. In such circumstance, Exhibit P6 is set aside. The application of the petitioner shall be accepted and notice shall be given by the 1st 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. The writ petition is allowed.