IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 387 of 2008(U) ------------------------ PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. VINAYARAJ, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KALICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. NEETHA, AGED 33, D/O. RADHA PILLAI, KOTTAPADAM, PATHIRIPALLA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGISTRAR GENERAL, OFFICE OF REGISTRAR GENERAL OF BIRTHS, DEATHS & MARRIAGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, (LOCAL REGISTRAR), GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYOOR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. M.R. SABU. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON 22/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE DT. 28.11.2007 OF 2ND PETITINER. EXT. P2 -DO- RELEVANT PAGES OF LAPSED INDIAN PASSPORT OF 2ND PETITONER. EXT. P3 -DO- RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT OF USA OF 2ND PETITIONER. EXT. P4 -DO- PHOTOGRAPH OF MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER. EXT. P4A -DO- EXT. P5 -DO- OF INVITATION OF MARRIAGE OF 1ST PETITIONER. EXT. P6. -DO- INVITATION OF MARRIAGE OF 2ND PETITONER. EXT. P7 -DO- CERTIFICATE DT. 26.11.2007. EXT. P8 -DO- MARRIAGE REPORT DT. 26.11.2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 387 OF 2008 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to accept Ext. P8 marriage report of the petitioners and register their marriage. There is a further prayer to the respondents to issue certificate of registration of their marriage as expeditiously as possible and at any rate before 26.1.2008. 2. The case of the writ petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is an Indian citizen and a Doctor by profession. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, it is stated that she was born to Indian parents and Ext. P1 is the birth certificate. Her mother was working in United States of America and at the age of 3 ½ years, she was taken to America. Since then she has been staying there and by domicile has acquired citizenship also. Ext. P3 is the extract of her passport. Referring to Exts. P4, P5, P6 and P7 petitioners submit that their marriage ceremony was performed at Sreekrishnaswamy W.P.(C) No. 387 OF 2008 -2- Temple, Guruvayur on 26.11.2007. Thereafter, they submitted Ext. P8 report of marriage in Form I to the 2nd respondent accompanied with copy of the passport of the 1st petitioner and copy of the birth certificate of the 2nd petitioner for identification purpose. It is stated that Ext. P8 marriage report was not accepted by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the 2nd petitioner is not an Indian citizen and hence the marriage was invalid. According to the 2nd petitioner, she has to return to United States of America on 26.1.2008 and it is in this background this writ petition has been filed with the prayers mentioned above. 3. The Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that it is in view of Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act providing for the application of the Act, since the 2nd petitioner is not domiciled within the territories of India they had difficulty in accepting Ext. P8 and register the same. 4. I have heard the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, the learned Govt. Pleader for the 1st respondent and the counsel for the 2nd respondent. 5. The facts are not in dispute. The only technical problem that is projected by the 2nd respondent is the citizenship that the 2nd W.P.(C) No. 387 OF 2008 -3- petitioner has acquired in United States of America. In my view, in the facts of this case, the approach adopted by the 2nd respondent is too technical. Further, a reading of Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act also indicates that it is applicable to any person who is a Hindu by religion. Section 5 provides conditions for a Hindu marriage. There is no contention that any of the conditions of the Hindu marriage are not satisfied. If that be so, the petitioners being Hindus the marriage having been solemnized at Guruvayur, and admittedly the 1st petitioner being a citizen and resident of India, the 2nd respondent shall accept Ext. P8 marriage report, register the same and issue certificate of registration forthwith. I clarify that this order is passed without examining the validity of the rival contentions and in the peculiar facts of the case. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-