SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Ker) 159

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Giby George, Nellickal House, Kottayam – Appellant
Versus
The Marriage Officer (Principal District Registrar), Office of the District Registrar, Kottayam – Respondent


Judgment :-

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





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top