IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5216 of 2008(U)
1. T.R.ROY, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.T.K.RAJAPPAN
... Petitioner
2. SHALI JOSEPH, AGED 22 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.KHALID
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 5216 OF 2008 U
====================
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners submit that they have given Ext.P1 notice of
intended marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage
Act on 4/1/2008. It is submitted by the petitioners that towards
fee, they had remitted Rs.3/- which was sent by money order and
Ext.P3 is referred to in this context which carries the seal of its
acceptance on 17/1/2008. According to the petitioners, the
application was returned by the respondent by Ext.P4 dated
23/1/2008 stating that the petitioners had not remitted the fee
and therefore petitioners were directed to cure the defect and
then resubmit Ext.P1 notice. It is thereupon that this writ
petition has been filed.
2. Petitioners submit that since they had already remitted
the fee by Ext.P3, which was accepted by the respondent on
17/1/2008, it should be deemed that the application has been
WPC 5216/08
:2 :
validly filed and that too on 17/1/2008. It is further contended
that the notice period should be counted from 17/1/2008 and
marriage certified on that basis.
3. Having considered the matter, I am not in a position
to agree with the counsel for the petitioners. Although
petitioners claim that the remittance was towards the fee for
filing Ext.P1 notice of intended marriage, it is seen that the fee
has been sent not by the petitioners, but by somebody else.
There is nothing to indicate in Ext.P3 that the person concerned
has sent the amount towards fee on Ext.P1. If that be so, the
respondent cannot be found faulted with for returning the
application and requiring the petitioners to cure the defect of non
remittance of fee.
4. Now that the petitioners assert that Ext.P3 remittance
was towards Ext.P1, it is for the petitioners to prove the
correctness of this assertion to the satisfaction of the respondent.
Therefore, if the petitioners are interested to pursue Ext.P1, I
direct that the respondent shall permit the petitioners to prove
that the remittance by Ext.P3 was towards fee payable on Ext.P1.
WPC 5216/08
:3 :
For that purpose, I direct that if the petitioners appear before the
respondent on 15/02/2008 during office hours, an opportunity
will be afforded to the petitioners. If the respondent accept the
contention of the petitioners, thereafter Ext.P1 notice of intended
marriage will be accepted and notice will be published and the
request of the petitioners will be processed in accordance with
law.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.
Rp