IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5216 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. T.R.ROY, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.T.K.RAJAPPAN THULAYINAVLIYAKATH HOUSE, ELAKUNNAPUZHA (PO), ERNAKULAM. 2. SHALI JOSEPH, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.T.G.JOSEPH, THARAMEL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTHU (PO), ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM RESPONDENT: ---------------- THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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