IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27514 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ROSHAN MATHEW,S/O.MATHEW, AGED 29 YEARS,NELLIYILPUTHENVEEDU, PANAYAM P.O.,PERINAD,KOLLAM. 2. WINNIE ELMA ROY,W/O.ROSHAN MATHEW, AGED 24 YEARS,NELLIYILPUTHENVEEDU, PANAYAM P.O.,PERINAD,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGE AND SUB REGISTRAR,OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KUNDARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON 30/09/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.27514 of 2009-H ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The first petitioner who is residing abroad and the second petitioner who is residing at Perinad in Kollam District gave Ext.P1 notice of their intended marriage to the respondent under Section 5 of the Special Marriages Act, 1954. The notice was given on 29.5.2009. The first petitioner thereafter left India on 3.6.2009. The marriage was not solemnized within three months. The first petitioner came back to India on 24.9.2009. The marriage between the petitioners was thereafter solemnized on 26.9.2009 at Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Perinad and Ext.P2 marriage certificate was thereupon issued by the Vicar of the church. The petitioners thereafter approached the respondent and requested him to register their marriage and to issue a certificate of marriage. The respondent declined to register their marriage on the ground that Ext.P1 notice stood lapsed on the expiry of three months. This writ petition was thereupon filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 14 of the Special Marriages Act, 1954. In the alternative the petitioners seek a direction to respondents to register their W.P(C) No.27514 of 2009-H 2 marriage before 1.10.2009 and to issue a marriage certificate after completing the formalities. 2. As per Section 14 of the Act, if the marriage is not solemnized within three calendar months from the date on which notice thereof has been given to the Marriage Officer as required by Section 5, the notice and all other proceedings arising therefrom shall be deemed to have lapsed. The petitioners alone are to be blamed for not solemnising the marriage under the provisions of the Act within the period of three months from the date of giving of the notice. If the petitioners wanted, they could have solemnised the marriage within the period of three months stipulated in the Act and also got the marriage registered. In my opinion, the inability of the petitioners to solemnise and register their marriage within the period of three months from the date of giving of notice of their intended marriage, cannot be a reason to hold that stipulations in Section 14 of the Special Marriage Act that the notice shall be deemed to have lapsed, if the marriage is not solemnised within the stipulated period of three months is arbitrary or irrational. 3. Besides challenging the constitutional validity of Section 14 of the Special Marriages Act, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to register their marriage before 1.10.2009 and to issue a marriage certificate. The petitioners have not pleaded or W.P(C) No.27514 of 2009-H 3 proved that after the first notice of marriage given by them stood lapsed, they have given fresh notice of their intended marriage and that the period of 30 days has expired thereafter. What the petitioners really seek in the second relief is a direction to the respondents to register their marriage in violation of the stipulations in the Special Marriages Act, 1954. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the respondent to act in violation of the law and to register the marriage between the petitioners ignoring the statutory provisions. If the petitioners are desirous of registering their marriage under the Special Marriages Act, 1954 they will have to take appropriate steps in that regard. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to take appropriate steps under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to have their marriage solemnized and registered. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE