High Court Kerala High Court

Rinson Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rinson Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37822 of 2009(W)


1. RINSON THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BENCY KALAPPARAMBATH JOSEPH,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MARRIAGE REGISTRAR & SUB REGISTRAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KURIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :01/01/2010

 O R D E R
                P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                  -----------------------------------------------
                         WP(C) No. 37822 of 2009
                       ---------------------------------------
                 Dated, this the 1st day of January, 2010


                               J U D G M E N T

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus

directing the 2nd respondent to accept Ext.P3 notice, to solemnize and

register the marriage of the petitioners under the Cochin Christian Civil

Marriage Act (Act 5 of 1095) and to issue certificate of marriage to the

petitioners within the statutory period.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits with

specific reference to the contents of the Writ Petition that the petitioners are

Christians belonging to the Roman Catholic Syrian denomination and they,

having their place of dwelling in the territories of former Cochin State, they

are entitled to get married under the provisions of the above enactment on

completing the formalities provided under the Act. It is also contended that,

once notice under Section 7 of the Act is tendered, it is the statutory duty of

the Marriage Registrar to act upon it, in accordance with the provisions

contained thereon and to issue the necessary certificate. The learned

counsel, referring to the immediate necessity of the first petitioner to go

back to Australia by 15th of this month in pursuit of his employment, submits

that the action on the part of the 2nd respondent in not accepting Ext.P3

WP(C) No. 37822 of 2009
2

notice is liable to be interfered by this Court. Reliance is also placed on the

decision rendered by this Court under similar circumstances as borne by

Ext.P4 verdict.

3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

submits that as per the instructions received, the petitioners have not

approached the 2nd respondent and that they have not filed Ext.P3 notice as

proclaimed. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, if the

petitioners approach the 2nd respondent and file the necessary notice as

contemplated under the relevant provisions of law, along with the

requirements as specified, the same will be considered and will be finalised

in accordance with law without any delay.

4. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners are at

liberty to give necessary notice of marriage to the 2nd respondent and if any

notice is submitted, the same shall be accepted and acted upon in

accordance with law and the proceedings shall be finalised issuing the

necessary certificate, if everything is in order, as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate, within three days from the production of the notice as above. The

learned Government Pleader will communicate the position to the 2nd

respondent forthwith.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc