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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN, J.
SHAN S. – Petitioner
Versus
THE MARRIAGE OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 17818 of 2022
Decided On : 15-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R.V. SREEJITH.
For the Respondents: P.S. APPU, LAYA MARY JOSEPH.

Point of Law: Canadian law neither requires nor provides for issuance of such certificates. High Commission of Canada in New Delhi, is not in a position to issue certificate required.

Headnote:

Notaries Act, 1952 - Section 14 - Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oathsnd Fees) Act, 1948 - Section 3 - Doctrine of impossibility - Canadian citizen - Powers as to oaths and notarial acts abroad - Other alternative is under Section 14 of Notaries Act, 1952, providing for acceptance of notarial acts done by notaries within countries that recognise notarial acts done by notaries within India.

Findings of Court:

What emerges from scrutiny of Section 3 and well considered decisions above, is that diplomatic officers of Indian Embassy in Canada are empowered to apostille affidavits and do notarial acts, which shall have same effect as done by an authorised officer/attorney in India. Therefore, petitioner can be permitted to produce an affidavit duly attested/notarised in manner provided in Section 3, in lieu of non-objection and bachelorhood certificate.

Result: Writ Petition disposed.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. ARUN, J.

1. The first petitioner is an Indian citizen and the second petitioner, a Canadian citizen with an Overseas Citizen of India card. Being desirous of entering into matrimony, the petitioners gave Exhibit P1 notice of intended marriage. Based on Exhibit P1 an intimation was sent to the petitioners, requiring them to appear on 22.5.2022 for solemnisation of the marriage. In the meanwhile, the second petitioner had to rush back to Canada at her employer’s behest. The second petitioner therefore requested the respondent to permit her to appear through online mode. The respondent having refused to accede to the request, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent to permit the second petitioner to appear online before him, for solemnization of marriage, as sought in Exhibit P1.

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent to pass orders on Exhibit P4 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”

2. Advocate R.V. Sreejith appearing for the petitioner submitted that, right of an intending spouse working/residing abroad, to get his/her marriage solemnized by appearing through virtual mode, is no longer res integra in view of the directions in Exhibit P7 order of the Division Bench. It is submitted that ,after Exhibit P7 order, a series of judgments have been rendered, granting permission for solemnization of marriage, by one spouse appearing virtually. It is pointed out that the only distinctive feature of the case at hand is that the second petitioner is a Canadian citizen. Therefore, a non-objection and bachelorhood certificate to prove her single status has to be obtained from the Canadian Embassy in India. The request in that regard submitted by the second petitioner was answered by the Canadian Embassy expressing its inability, since Canadian law neither requires nor provides from issuance of non-objection and bachelorhood certificate. It is contended that the second petitioner cannot be compelled to perform the impossible task of producing bachelorhood certificate and should, in the alternative, be permitted to produce an affidavit as to her single status, notarised by an Attorney in Canada.

3. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that, Exhibit R1(a) order mandates the production of non-objection and bachelorhood certificate from the Embassy, if one of the applicants is a foreign national. On being informed about this requirement, the second petitioner produced Exhibit R1(b) certificate, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

“Canadian law neither requires nor provides for the issuance of such certificates. Therefore, the High Commission of Canada in New Delhi, is not in a position to issue the certificate required.”

In view of the mandatory stipulation in Exhibit R1(a), it is impossible to solemnize the marriage, without the certificate. It is contended that, affidavits apostilled in a foreign country will be acceptable only if the foreign country is a member of the Hague Apostille Convention, 1961. Canada not being a member of the Hague Convention, the 2nd petitioner’s affidavit, even if apostilled by a Notary in Canada, cannot be accepted.

4. On being requested to assist the Court in resolving the question as to the acceptability or otherwise of affidavits apostilled by Attorneys in foreign countries, Advocate Shyam Padman responded with alacrity and made the following submissions:

In view of the Canadian High Commission’s stand that it does not issue certificates of non-impediment to marriages abroad, the option available to the petitioner is to file a properly authenticated and attested single status affidavit. Many countries are accepting such affidavits in lieu of bachelorhood certificates. The Hague Apostille Convention of 1961 is an international treaty cre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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