IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32359 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1. SAJIL BABY, PALATTU HOUSE,CHILAVU P.O, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 588 2. BABITHA BABY, PARAKKUNNATHUKUDI, RAMALLUR,KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 691 3. BABY SEBASTIAN, PALATTU HOUSE,CHILAVU P.O, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 588 4. BABY P.P, PARAKKUNNATHUKUDI, RAMALLUR,KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 691 BY ADV. SRI. JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM RESPONDENT(S): SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOTHAMANGALAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 691 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 32359 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NAMELY “VIEW CERTIFICATE OF SPONSORSHIP” DOWNLOADED ON 21.11.2011 FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF UK BORDER AGENCY. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 25.08.2011. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 21.11.2011, ISSUED BY DR. RAJEEV S., REGARDING THE ILL HEALTH OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION WITH NO.CNO.133/11 DATED 02.12.2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------ WPC NO. 32359 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T 2nd petitioner is a qualified nurse who has secured employment in United Kingdom. She has been informed that her visa is ready and that the same can be received within a couple of days. According to her, immediately she has to join duty and only if she is having marital status by a registered marriage, she would be able to receive visa within a period of 6 months for her spouse also. 2. Ext.P2 dated 25.08.2011 is a notice of intended marriage given by petitioners 1 and 2 u/s. 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to the respondent, the Marriage Officer. Thereafter, they approached the respondent for registering their marriage, and thereupon, the respondent WPC NO. 32359 OF 2011 ..2.. issued Ext.P4 dated 02.12.2011 stating that since 3 months have expired from the date of notice, the marriage cannot be registered. It is aggrieved by Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed. 3. Petitioners contend that the 1st petitioner, the bride groom, was hospitalised for a period of 10 days, and it was therefore the petitioners 1 and 2 could not get the marriage registered within 3 months of Ext.P2 notice. It is stated that since the failure was for reasons beyond their control, the stand taken by the respondent in Ext.P4 is illegal. 4. Ext.P2, the notice, u/s. 5 of the Act, was given by the parties on 27.08.2011. Section 14 of the Act says that whenever a marriage is not solemnised within 3 calender months from the date on which the notice has been given to the Marriage Officer as required by Sec.5, the notice and all other proceedings arising therefrom shall be deemed to WPC NO. 32359 OF 2011 ..3.. have lapsed and no Marriage Officer shall solemnise the marriage until a new notice has been given in the manner laid down in the Act. Admittedly, the petitioners did not approach the Marriage Officer within the three-months period. If that to be so, the view taken by the respondent in Ext.P4 cannot be said to be illegal. 5. However, fact remains that this is a case where failure of the petitioners 1 and 2 to get their marriage registered within the 90-days period was for reasons which are beyond their control. This is evident from Ext.P3 medical certificate, issued by the Doctor who was treating the 2nd petitioner. There is also nothing to indicate that there was no objection received in response to the notice u/s.5. Further if the marriage is not registered, the second petitioner who is to join duty in U.K. will also be seriously prejudiced. In such circumstances, I feel, hence of justice required that the respondents should register the WPC NO. 32359 OF 2011 ..4.. petitioners 1 and 2 irrespective of Ext.P4. Therefore, although I hold Ext.P4, direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the respondent will register the marriage of petitioners 1 and 2. This shall be subject to the petitioners producing a copy of the judgment before the respondent on or before 08.12.2011, for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE bka/-