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

2017 Supreme(Ker) 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
Merin Dominic - Petitioner
Vs.
Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary Of The Government, Ministry Of External Affairs & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 3558 of 2017 (T)
Decided On : 21-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Vincent Raphael, Sri. P.J. Jose, Smt. Jisa P. Jose
For the Respondents: Sri. N. Nagaresh, Sri. S. Kannan

Headnote:Constitution of India, Art.372 and Art.395 – Christian Civil Marriage Act 1920 (Cochin) (Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act 1095), S. 5 – Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act, 1095 is still in force.-Law in force as held in the article is inclusive of the law passed or made by the legislature there in and also other competent authority as in territory of India as before the commencement of the constitution and not prevailing at any area as it is protected as under Article 372 of the act -The marriage between the parties is formalized as according to the provisions of the act and the marriage certificate is issued as per the provision there in the act.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking declaration that Ext.P2 marriage registration certificate issued to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi is a valid marriage certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act, 1905 [hereinafter called 'the Act, 1905], which confer upon the petitioner and 3rd respondent, legal marital status which is valid and binding for all purpose including for approval of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I 130 [USCIS], Petition For Alien Relative and thereafter for the issuance of immigrant visa to the petitioner herein, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner herein is a citizen of India and a Roman Catholic Christian by religion. She is residing at Kochi, a place within the jurisdiction and prevalence of Act, 1905. Respondent No.3 is a US citizen with Indian origin having ancestral home at Thevara, Kochi, who is also a Roman Catholic Christian coming within the precincts of Act, 1905. The marriage between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was solemnized and registered as per Act, 1905 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi, viz., the 2nd respondent herein, evident from Ext.P2 certificate issued.

3. According to the petitioner, the Special Registrar having charge to solemnize the marriage was absent consequent to transfer, and his office was lying vacant. The absence of the Special Marriage officer was communicated to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi, as per Ext.P1 letter issued by the Sub Registry Office, Edappally. Thus the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi, who has the power to solemnize and register the marriage as per Section 5 of Act, 1905 has solemnized and registered the marriage and thus issued Ext.P2 marriage certificate dated 18.06.2016. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent ever since the solemnization of the marriage started living as husband and wife. Third respondent returned to USA and submitted Ext.P8 form before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, dated 15.08.2016. However, as per Ext.P9 letter dated 11.01.2017, the said authority has sought clarification on the validity of the above marriage solemnized and registered under Act, 1905. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare that Ext.P2 certificate is a valid marriage certificate to be considered for processing Ext.P8 application. Third respondent is served with Ext.P9 notice by the said U.S. authority, by which it is asked to clarify which of the Marriage Act applies to the marriage by checking the appropriate blank under which the following marriage acts are recognized:

(i) Hindu Marriage Act;

(ii) Indian Christian Marriage Act;

(iii) Muslim Law on Marriage; and

(iv) Special Marriage Act.

Petitioner is also asked to submit evidence that the marriage was conducted in accordance with the particular Act governing the 3rd respondent's marriage. These are the background facts available before me to consider the case projected by the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner. Since the 3rd respondent is in U.S. and since it is submitted that she has no dispute with respect to the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective counsel for the respondents, the first question to be decided is whether the 2nd respondent is vested with powers to solemnize a marriage under Act, 1905?

As per Section 5, Marriage Registrars are defined to mean; one or more Christians either by name or holding any office for the time being, to be the Marriage Registrar or Marriage Registrars for any local area sp








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 Back to top