IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2645 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. JULIOUS, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.NELSON SEBASTIAN, MARIYALAYAM, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 2. TANIA, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHEERAN THAMBI, CHEERAN HOUSE, PAZHANJI P.O., ARUVAI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SUB REGISTRAR & MARRIAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM – 691 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.2645 OF 2011(E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners' marriage was solemnized on 5.7.2010 at the St. Casimir's Church, Kollam. It is stated that for the purpose of obtaining Visa for the 2nd petitioner, they gave a notice under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on 12.10.2010. Thereafter, the first petitioner returned to USA where he is employed and came back to India on 18.1.2011. Thereupon on 18.1.2011 itself, petitioners went to the office of the respondent and then they were told that on expiry of 3 calender months from the date of notice, the marriage cannot be solemnized. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. The justification stated by the petitioners is that it was only on account of the fact that first petitioner was in USA that the petitioners could not report before the respondent any time before the expiry of the three months and therefore the refusal of the respondent to solemnize the marriage is illegal. 3. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter and submits that the notice given by the petitioners WPC.No.2645 /2011 :2 : on 12.10.2010 was under Section 5 of the Act. Learned Government Pleader has relied on Section 14 of the Act to contend that by the time the petitioners reported at the office of the respondent, the notice had elapsed and it was therefore that the respondent has refused to register the marriage. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I am inclined to think that the respondent was justified in his action. When a notice under Section 5 of the Act is served on the Marriage Officer, in view of Section 14 of the Act, if the marriage is not solemnized within 3 months from the date of which such notice has been given, the notice and all other proceedings arising there from shall be deemed to have elapsed and no Marriage Officer shall solemnize the marriage until a new notice is given as per the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, by the time petitioners report for solemnizing their marriage, the 3 months period elapsed and if so under Section 14 of the Act, the notice had elapsed. If that be so, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any illegality in the matter warranting interference by this court. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.2645 /2011 :3 :