Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Rajeev Thilak vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2002

Vinaya Nair vs Corporation Of Cochin on 27 February, 2006

A learned single Judge of this Court in Rajeev v. State of Kerala 2001 (1) KLT 578 has also taken the view that even if one of the parties is not an Indian citizen the marriage can be solemnised under the Special Marriage Act. Section 1 of the Act deals with territorial operation. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act has two limbs. First limb states that the Hindu Marriage Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Counsel highlighted the general principle of intra territorial operation to the whole of India. Second limb of Sub-section (2) highlights its extra territorial operation. Extra territorial operation connotes that that it applies to all persons even if they reside in different parts outside the country. The expression has got another meaning with reference to nationals residing outside. First limb of Sub-section (2) of Section 1 gives no emphasis to the expression "domicile".
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Sosamma Kurian Bernt vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2005

2. The learned Sr.Govt.Pleader points out Section 29 of the Foreign Marriage Act and submits that there is no Marriage Officer in Germany and it is not possible to verify the credentials, identity and background of the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision reported in Rajeev v. State of Kerala (2001(1) KLT 578) and would submit that even if one of the parties is not an Indian citizen, the marriage can be solemnized under the Special Marriage Act. Therefore, I am of the view there cannot be any prohibition for solemnization of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act. But the aspect relating to the mandatory procedure are to be complied in terms of Sections 5 and 6(3) under the Special Marriage Act. Notice under Section 5 is a mandatory. In a sense the observation of the procedure is essential for allowing the parties to WP(C).No.22261/2014-G. 3 marry under the Special Marriage Act. However, in this case the petitioner has produced Exts.P6 and P7. Ext.P7 is the no objection certificate issued by the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany, Bangalore. If the purpose is achieved in a credible manner it is sufficient to satisfy the mandate of the Section 5. In view of the above, I am of the view, treating Ext.P8 has been lodged on 14.8.2014 the petitioner's marriage with Sri.Rudolf Erwin Huber shall be solemnized in accordance with law reckoning notice of the marriage as on 14.8.2014.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1