Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rajeev Vs. State of Kerala

Rajeev vs State of Kerala

Disposition Petition allowed Court Kerala Decided Dec 18, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/721714

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
O.P.No. 34601 of 2000
Subject
Family
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Family
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Sections 4 and 6(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajeev

Advocate P. Gopakumaran Nair and; C.S. Dias, Advs.

Respondent

State of Kerala

Advocate Preethy Ramakrishnan, Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts
Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Sections 4 and 6(3)
Cases Referred
Marian Eva v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Reported In
I(2001)DMC562

Excerpt

- r. bhaskaran, j.1. this original petition is filed for a direction to the second respondent to accept the original of ext. p1 and take necessary action on it. ext. p1 is an application for registering the marriage under the special marriage act. the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the registrar of marriages has informed the petitioner that since one of the parties to the marriage is not an indian citizen, the marriage cannot be registered. when this original petition came up for hearing, the learned government pleader submitted that the marriage is not registered because ext. p1 application is not properly filled up and if proper corrections are made in the application form, the marriage will be solemnised. learned counsel for petitioner pointed out the decision reported in marian eva v. state of himachal pradesh (air 1993 himachal pradesh 7) which shows that even if one of the parties is not an indian citizen, the marriage can be solemnized under the special marriage act. the act also does not contain any prohibition for solemnisation of the marriage, if one of theparties is a foreigner. therefore, this original petition is allowed and the secondrespondent is directed to solemnise the marriage under the special marriage act provided the petitioner makes necessary corrections in the original of ext. p1 and after the scrutiny of the same by the second respondent according to the rules.

Full Judgment

R. Bhaskaran, J.

1. This Original Petition is filed for a direction to the second respondent to accept the original of Ext. P1 and take necessary action on it. Ext. P1 is an application for registering the marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the Registrar of Marriages has informed the petitioner that since one of the parties to the marriage is not an Indian citizen, the marriage cannot be registered. When this Original Petition came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the marriage is not registered because Ext. P1 application is not properly filled up and if proper corrections are made in the application form, the marriage will be solemnised. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out the decision reported in Marian Eva v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1993 Himachal Pradesh 7) which shows that even if one of the parties is not an Indian citizen, the marriage can be solemnized under the Special Marriage Act. The Act also does not contain any prohibition for solemnisation of the marriage, if one of theparties is a foreigner. Therefore, this Original Petition is allowed and the secondrespondent is directed to solemnise the marriage under the Special Marriage Act provided the petitioner makes necessary corrections in the original of Ext. P1 and after the scrutiny of the same by the second respondent according to the Rules.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial