IMPORTANT POINTS:
A marriage between persons, one or both of whom is or are a Christian or Christians but neither of whom is a Christian British subject may be solemnized by or in the presence of a Marriage Registrar appointed under the said Act. Hence it is clear that the statute itself in clear terms stipulated that only one among the proposed couple need be a Christian and the only exception made is that the benefit of the said Act cannot be claimed by a Christian British subject. It has to be borne in mind that the abovesaid law was enacted as Act 5 of 1095 ME (1920 AD) and the said exception would have been only to take care of the fact situation then prevailing that there could be Christian British subject for whom the Legislature has made it clear that they cannot claim the benefit of the Act. The said exception has not much relevance in the present scenario, more particularly in the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence the first objection that both the couple should necessarily be belonging to Christian religion in order to enable them to avail the benefit of the provisions of the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act, 1095 ME, is untenable and the same will stand overruled.

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows :

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the second respondent to accept the original of Exhibit P-4 application and to register and solemnize the proposed marriage in accordance with Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act, 1095.

ii. to grant such other further reliefs as are necessary in the interests of justice.”

2. Heard Sri. Navaneeth N. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in refusing to take steps to accept notice of intended marriage and for consequential steps for solemnization and registration of their marriage under the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act, 1095 ME (1920 AD) on the ground that the marriage under the said Act can be solemnized only between two Christians and that though the 1st petitioner is a Christian, as the 2nd petitioner is not a Christian (she belongs to Hindu religion), the marriage cannot be solemnized, etc. Further, that when the petitioners had contacted the 2nd respondent, they could also learn that the marriage under the abovesaid Act is solemnized only if both the parties to the proposed marriage are residents within the territorial limits of the erstwhile Cochin State.

4. This Court, while issuing notice before admission on 9.1.2019, had requested the learned Senior Govt. Pleader to get instructions in the matter and also ordered that, since the minimum 4 days’ notice period is required under S.10(3) of the abovesaid Act and as the 1st petitioner (proposed bridegroom) has to leave India by 18.1.2019, the 2nd respondent Sub Divisional Magistrate, who is empowered to perform the duties and functions of the marriage officer under the abovesaid Act, will take on file Ext.P-4 notice of intended marriage and conduct summary enquiry whether the petitioners are otherwise eligible for solemnization of marriage going by their age, single status, etc. The said order dated 9.1.2019 reads as follows:

“Notice before admission for the respondents is accepted by the learned Sr. Government Pleader concerned. The learned Sr. Government Pleader will get instructions in the matter and also will examine the tenability of the legal grounds urged by the petitioners. Since minimum four day notice period is required under the provisions of S.10(3) of the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act, 1095 and as the 1st petitioner (proposed bridegroom), has to leave India by 18.01.2019, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2nd respondent-Marriage Officer will take on file Ext.P-4 notice of intended marriage and will also conduct summary enquiry whether the petitioners are otherwise eligible for solemnization of the marriage going by their age limit, single status, etc. The petitioners may file separate sworn affidavits on their behalf, giving the details of their particulars and about their single status and age. So also, the petitioners will also ensure that separate affidavits of the two witnesses mentioned in Ext.P-4 notice will also be given delineating the factual particulars of the petitioners regarding their age, date of birth, single status, etc. So that the 2nd respondent can process and decide otherwise on the eligibility of the petitioners, in the meanwhile.”

5. Sri. Navaneeth N. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have already complied with the directions issued by this Court as per order dated 9.1.2019 and had filed separate sworn affidavits giving particulars including age, date of birth, single status and have also produced separate affidavits of two witnesses mentioned in Ext.P-4 notice giving the factual particulars of the petitioners.

6. The matter in issue is no longer res integra and is covered in favour of the petitioners as per the dictum laid down in a