JUDGMENT

Petitioner, an Indian citizen desires to marry a citizen of Finland, namely Alanen Satu Kristiina. Accordingly, petitioner and the bride submitted Ext.P1, notice of intended marriage to conduct the marriage on 20.09.2016, under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the third respondent. However, third respondent Marriage Officer rejected Ext. P1 notice and issued Ext. P3 order stating that one of the parties to the marriage is a foreign citizen and therefore the marriage cannot be solemnized by submitting an one-line application. It is challenging Ext. P3 order, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth.

3. The question with respect to the marriage of an Indian citizen with a foreigner was considered by this Court in various judgments and held that as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 , one of the parties to the intended marriage need be a citizen of India. Therefore, it was held that even if one of the parties is a foreign citizen, that will not disable the Marriage Officer from registering the