1. The first petitioner is an Indian citizen who is stated to be employed abroad. The second petitioner is a citizen and permanent resident of United Kingdom. It is stated that the marriage between the petitioners will be solemnised in accordance with the Hindu rites between 1.3.2014 and 3.3.2014 at Kumarakam in Kerala, that as they intend to reside in United Kingdom after marriage they require a marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer appointed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and for that purpose they have filed Ext.P5 application for registration of their marriage under section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) before the respondent Sub-Registrar the Marriage Officer appointed under the Act, by sending the application by registered post acknowledgment due on 3.2.2014.

2. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 28.2.2014, the petitioners pray for an order directing the respondent Sub Registrar to register their marriage pursuant to Ext.P5 application and to issue the marriage certificate without further delay. The petitioners have averred that they have already booked tickets to United Kingdom, that they have to be back in the United kingdom on 9.3.2014, that the period of 30 days stipulated in section 16 of the Act is not mandatory and can be waived by the Sub-Registrar in the interests of justice as held by a Division Bench of this Court in John Lukose vs. District Registrar, 2007 (1) KLT 247 : AIR 2007 (DOC) 285 (Ker) and by a learned single Judge of this Court in Giby George vs. Marriage Officer, 2007 (2) KLT 270 : AIR 2007 Ker 152 and in such circumstances, the respondent should register their marriage which is proposed to be solemnised on 3.3.2014 without waiting for the expiry of the period of 30 days from the date of Ext.P5 application.

3. I heard Sri. Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. M.J. Rajasree, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. Sri. Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in John Lukose vs. District Registrar, 2007 (1) KLT 247 : AIR 2007 (DOC) 285 (Ker) and the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Giby George vs. Marriage Officer, 2007 (2) KLT 270 : AIR 2007 Ker 152 that in exceptional cases, as in the case on hand, a marriage solemnised otherwise than under the Act can be registered under section 16 of the Act, before the expiry of the period of 30 days from the date of the application. The learned counsel contended that unless the petitioners report back in United Kingdom on 9.3.2014 they will lose their employment thereby visiting them with adverse consequences, that Exts.P1 and P2 marriage invitations prove the fact that the marriage between them was solemnised on 3.3.2014 at Kumarakam in Kerala, that they have jointly submitted an application for registration of their marriage by post and therefore, as the bona fides of the application is spelt out from the attendant circumstances, the Sub Registrar ought to have waived the notice period of 30 days, registered their marriage and issued the marriage certificate.

4. Per contra, Smt. M.J. Rajasree, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Deepak Krishna vs. District Registrar, 2007 (3) KLT 570 : AIR 2007 Ker 257 and submitted that the Division Bench has held that the principles laid down by this Court in John Lukose vs. District Registrar, 2007 (1) KLT 247 : AIR 2007 (DOC) 285 (Ker) would be confined to the facts and circumstances of that case, overruled the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in John Roji vs. Marriage Officer, 2004 (1) KLT 687 to the extent it holds that the Marriage Officer need not wait for 30 days and the decision in Giby George vs. Marriage Officer, 2007 (2