Notarized affidavits can suffice for marriage applications without requiring a single status certificate from a foreign national's home country.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to process Ext.P1 notice submitted by the petitioners to get their marriage solemnized under the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act , 1095 (M.E) (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The petitioners are Christians by religion. The

1^st petitioner is residing in the erstwhile Cochin State and is governed by the provisions of the Act. The 1^st petitioner desires to get married to the 2^nd petitioner, who is a national of Nepal. The petitioners are living together for the last one year. They had submitted Ext.P1 application before the respondent to get their marriage solemnized as per the provisions of the Act. However, the respondent has refused to accept the application on the ground that the 2^nd petitioner has not produced a single status certificate. In fact, the 2^nd petitioner has produced Ext.P2 marital status certificate issued by her Municipality in Nepal and has sworn Ext.P3 notarized affidavit stating that, she is a spinster. By Ext.P4 judgment, this Court had directed that a notarized affidavit is sufficient to establish the single status of the person who desires to get married. The petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P4 judgment. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, the petitioner in Ext.P4 judgment had produced a notarized affidavit from the Country where he hailed from. However, in the case at hand, though the 2^nd petitioner is a National of Nepal, she has produced an affidavit executed by her in Thrissur, which is not in line with Ext.P4 judgment. It is in the said situation that the respondent has refused to process Ext.P1 application.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd petitioner is presently in India. It is not practically possible for her to return to Nepal and to get a notarised affidavit from her Country. She has also produced Ext.P2 single status certificate issued by her Municipality which satisfies the Administrative orders of the Government.

6. The Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act 1095, does not mandate a single status certificate. It is based on Administrative Orders issued by the Government of Kerala that the respondent is insisting for a single status certificate. By Ext.P4 judgment, while considering an identical issue for solemnising a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, this Court had directed the Marriage Officer to solemnize the marriage by accepting a notarised affidavit from the foreign national from the Country where the person hailed instead of a single status certificate because there was no law in that country to issue such a certificate.

7. In the present case, the 2^nd petitioner has produced Ext.P2 single status certificate issued by her Municipality in Nepal. She has also sworn Ext.P3 affidavit before a Notary Public in Thrissur, where she is residing. Both in Exts.P2 and P3, it is specifically stated the 2^nd petitioner is a spinster. I find the said certificate and affidavit to be more than sufficient to prove the 2^nd petitioner's marital status. The insistence for a notarised affidavit from the country where the 2^nd petitioner hails from, is unreasonable and hyper-technical. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent is to be directed to solemnize the marriage between the petitioners on the basis of Ext.P2 certificate and Ext.P3 affidavit.

Consequentially, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent to process Ext.P1 notice of marriage submitted by the petitioners and solemnize and register their marriage as per the provisions of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four days from the date of production of a cop