JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of February, 2022 The 1st petitioner, who is an Engineer by profession and residing at Kothamangalam and the 2nd petitioner, who is also an Engineer by profession hailing from Angamaly, decided to marry themselves. An application was submitted before the 1st respondent–Marriage Officer for solemnisation and registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. A notice of intended marriage was also given.

2. As the 1st respondent did not proceed with solemnisation of marriage, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to command the 1st respondent to proceed with Ext.P3 notice of intended marriage and solemnise/register the marriage of the petitioners through video conferencing/online mode and issue certificate of marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

3. The petitioners state that the 2nd petitioner is now at Belgium and is not in a position to come to Kerala for solemnisation of marriage. This Court in WP(C) No.15244/2021 and other connected cases had permitted solemnisation of marriage through online taking into consideration the pandemic situation across the world. The petitioners are also entitled to such benefit, contended the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Pleader entered appearance and submitted that the 1st respondent has received the application submitted by the petitioners. However, the 2nd petitioner is a British citizen, now working in Belgium and is holding a VISA for Overseas Citizen of India as per Ext.P2. Therefore, it is evident that the 2nd petitioner is not an Indian citizen. If the 2nd petitioner is not an Indian citizen, as per the rules and regulations governing solemnisation of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, the 2nd petitioner is liable to produce a Single Status Certificate or Bachelor Certificate.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Wilson Urmese pointed out that the 2nd petitioner is a British citizen and the said Country does not issue Single Status Certificate or Bachelor Certificate. Therefore, the marriage should be solemnised without production of such document.

6. This Court has considered identical issue relating to British citizen intending to marry a citizen of India. This Court held that as the Embassies in U.K. do not issue Single Status Certificate, the marriage can be solemnised if such citizen produces credible evidence relating to their Single Status duly apostilled in their Country. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd petitioner is ready and willing to produce such credible evidence before the 1st respondent.

7. If the petitioner produces credible evidence relating to the Single Status of the 2nd petitioner duly apostilled, then the 1st respondent shall proceed to solemnise and register the marriage in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(I) On production of credible evidence as regards Single Status of the 2nd petitioner within the stipulated 90 days period, the Marriage Officer under the Special Marriage Act is directed to solemnise marriage or register the marriage, as the case may be, through online subject to the conditions hereafter referred.

(i) The witnesses required for solemnisation of marriage shall be present before the Marriage Officer.

(ii) The witnesses shall identify the parties who are online.

(iii) The copies of passport or any other public documents in respect of the parties who appear online shall be provided to the Marriage Officer for identification by the Marriage Officer.

(iv) Wherever signature of parties are required, that shall be affixed by the authorised Power of Attorney of the parties or any agent who produce any other official documents recognised under the Indian law on behalf of the parties who appear online.

(II) All other necessary formalities as required by law shall be complied with before solemnisation of marriage.

(III) The Marriage Officer shal