THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Giby George, Nellickal House, Kottayam – Appellant
Versus
The Marriage Officer (Principal District Registrar), Office of the District Registrar, Kottayam – Respondent
Petitioners married on 1-3-2007. The second petitioner is abroad. Her employer has offered to provide employment to the first petitioner, who is now unemployed. For such purpose, the petitioners need appropriate certificate of marriage for transit. Under the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, following the decision of the Division of this Court in Join Lukose v. District Registrar (2007 (1) KLT 247), I am inclined to direct the registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short, without insisting on the statutory notice period of thirty days.
2. However, the learned Government Pleader urges that the marriage itself was on 1-3-2007 and the application for registration of the marriage under the Act ought to be after a cohabitation of a minimum period of thirty days after the marriage. He makes this argument on the basis of Clause (f) of Section 52.
3. For the purpose of considering this contention, Section 15 of the Act has to be adverted to. It provides that any marriage celebrated before or after the commencement of the Act other than one solemnized ceremoniously under the Special Marriage Act 1872 o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.