It is averred that the petitioner is an Indian citizen, who has attained the age of majority. Earlier he had married an Indian citizen, viz., Teena Saji, D/o. Saji, residing at TC 28/530, Chrystal House, Kaithamukku, Petta P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, on 7.7.2011 in terms of the provisions contained in the Hindu Marriage Act and Ext.P-3 is the certificate of marriage issued by the competent authority in respect of the earlier marriage of the petitioner. It is further stated that later the marriage between the petitioner and the said Teena Saji was dissolved as per Ext.P-4 judgment and decree dated 11.5.2015 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P(HMA).No.1676/2014 on the basis of mutual consent between the parties.

2. It is the further case of the petitioner that while working in Dubai, he got acquainted with a lady of German national namely, Luisa Laskowski, and that pursuant to the proposal for marriage that was mooted by the families of both sides, the petitioner and the said German lady have decided to solemnize their marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. That the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent-Sub Registrar, Alappuzha, who is stated to be the notified Registrar for solemnization of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, for taking further steps for solemnization and registering the marriage of the petitioner with the said lady. It is further stated that Ext.P-5 is the requisite certificate issued by the Civil Registry Office of the German authorities concerned, wherein it has been inter alia stated that the petitioner's fiancee, Luisa Laskowski, has no impediment to marry abroad. That when the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent-Sub Registrar for ensuring issuance of requisite notice of the intended marriage in terms of the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the officials concerned in the office had earlier informed the petitioner that in view of the provisions contained in Ext.P-6 circular No.R.R.3-25537/00 dated 8.8.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent-Inspector General of Registration, the marriage between an Indian citizen and a foreign national cannot be solemnized and registered in terms of the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The petitioner would contend that Ext.P-6 circular cannot stand in the way of solemnization of the intended marriage of the petitioner with the German national if they otherwise satisfy all the other requirements of the Act. That the eligibility conditions for solemnization of the marriage are enumerated in the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and said provision or any other provisions do not in any manner prohibit the marriage between an Indian national and a foreign national. It is in the light of these aspects, that the instant Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:

“(i). Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for records relating to Exhibit-P6 and quash the same;

(ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to accept the application of the petitioner and his intended spouse in the Form prescribed under Special Marriage Act, 1954, process the same and solemnize the marriage between the petitioner and the intended spouse Luisa Laskowski in accordance with the provisions contained in the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

(iii). Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

3. Heard Smt. V.Bhavana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. This Court in the judgment in Rajeev v. State of Kerala, reported in 2001 (1) KLT 578, has held that even if one of the parties is not an Indian Citizen, the marriage can be solemnized under the Special Marriage Act and the Act also does not contain any prohibition for solemn