The petitioner, an Indian citizen, desires to enter into a marriage with one Satu Anniina, who is a Finnish citizen. The petitioner, residing under the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent, made an application for contracting the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. An objection was raised by the 3rd respondent, allegedly on the ground that the marriage is intended to be entered into with a Finnish citizen and, hence, the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 cannot be invoked.

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 High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Marian Eva v. State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 1993 Himachal Pradesh 7]. This 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. Another learned Single Judge of this Court also found to the same effect in Exhibit P5 judgment.

3. A reading of the provisions of the Special Marriage Act would also indicate that, Section 4 contemplates, marriage between “any two persons” to be solemnized under the Act; if the conditions specified therein are fulfilled. To satisfy the officer of the conditions stated therein, the intending bride has produced Ext.P2 issued by the Local Register Office of the West Uusimaa at Finland. The status of the said person is shown as single and it is also specifically declared that according to Finnish law there is no impediment to the proposed marriage. It was on the strength of the above document that Ext.P3 application was given by the petitioner herein to register the marriage.

4. On the strength of public notice bearing No.R.R.6/23638/2014 dated 21.10.2014 produced along with Ext.P4 the learned Government Pleader would seek to support the rejection made by the 3rd respondent. The learned Government Pleader contends that there is no Marriage Officer appointed by the Government of India in the Embassy of India at Finland and there is no provision for sending a communication as required under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act.

5. A reading of the said notice would indicate that as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 diplomatic and consular officers of the Embassies of India, abroad were appointed as Marriage Officers under the Special Marriage Act. The opinion of the Government expressed in Ext.P4 is that on a foreign citizen seeking registration of marriage with an Indian citizen, within the territories of India, the Government could get confirmation on the status of such foreign citizens from such Marriage Officers appointed in the Embassy. However, by introduction of Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, the provision for making Rules with respect to the diplomatic and consular officers and others as provided in Section 50 of the Act of 1954 was taken away. In such circumstance, there are no marriage officers as of now appointed by the Government of India, abroad. It was in such circumstance that now the public notice at Ext.P4 was issued, by which it is indicated that the Government is endeavouring to make suitable amendments, to facilitate the marriage of Indian citizens with foreign citizens within the territories of India.

6. Essentially a marriage cannot be kept in abeyance only by reason of such law having not been introduced. Then Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 is: “An Act to make provision relating to marriages of citizen of India outside India”. Here the petitioner, an Indian citizen intends a marriage with a foreigner within the territory of India. Further in Ext.P4 public notice, the decision in Rajeev v. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT 578], produced as Ext.P6 has been noticed. The declaration in the aforesaid decision remains as such even now, as per the existing law, being the Special Marriage Act; section 6 of the Act, requires that when either of the parties to an intended marriage is not permanently residing within the local l