Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Case Brief - Merin Dominic Vs UOI

    Uploaded by

    kashvi vachhani
    The case involved a petition filed by a woman (petitioner) seeking validation of her marriage to a US resident (third respondent) under the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act of 1905. The marriage was solemnized by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (second respondent) as the special registrar was absent. The third respondent was asked to clarify the legitimacy of the marriage for immigration purposes. The court analyzed section 5 of the Act and Article 372 of the Constitution and held that the Act of 1905 was still valid and the second respondent was authorized to solemnize the marriage. Therefore, the court held that the marriage certificate was a legitimate document validating the marriage as per the Act of 1905.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Brief - Merin Dominic Vs UOI

    Uploaded by

    kashvi vachhani
    34 views3 pages
    The case involved a petition filed by a woman (petitioner) seeking validation of her marriage to a US resident (third respondent) under the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act of 1905. The marriage was solemnized by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (second respondent) as the special registrar was absent. The third respondent was asked to clarify the legitimacy of the marriage for immigration purposes. The court analyzed section 5 of the Act and Article 372 of the Constitution and held that the Act of 1905 was still valid and the second respondent was authorized to solemnize the marriage. Therefore, the court held that the marriage certificate was a legitimate document validating the marriage as per the Act of 1905.

    Original Description:

    case anaylsis on Merin Dominic vs UOI

    Original Title

    Case Brief - Merin Dominic vs UOI

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a petition filed by a woman (petitioner) seeking validation of her marriage to a US resident (third respondent) under the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act of 1905. The marriage was solemnized by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (second respondent) as the special registrar was absent. The third respondent was asked to clarify the legitimacy of the marriage for immigration purposes. The court analyzed section 5 of the Act and Article 372 of the Constitution and held that the Act of 1905 was still valid and the second respondent was authorized to solemnize the marriage. Therefore, the court held that the marriage certificate was a legitimate document validating the marriage as per the Act of 1905.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    34 views3 pages

    Case Brief - Merin Dominic Vs UOI

    Uploaded by

    kashvi vachhani
    The case involved a petition filed by a woman (petitioner) seeking validation of her marriage to a US resident (third respondent) under the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act of 1905. The marriage was solemnized by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (second respondent) as the special registrar was absent. The third respondent was asked to clarify the legitimacy of the marriage for immigration purposes. The court analyzed section 5 of the Act and Article 372 of the Constitution and held that the Act of 1905 was still valid and the second respondent was authorized to solemnize the marriage. Therefore, the court held that the marriage certificate was a legitimate document validating the marriage as per the Act of 1905.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Case brief

    In the case of Merin Dominic vs. Union of India and Ors.


    (21.02.2017 - KERHC) MANU/KE/0220/2017

    (In the high court of Kerala), has been set as a precedent and cited
    In Joseph George and Ors . vs . State of Kerala and Ors . ( 11 . 01 . 2019 -
    KERHC Manu/KE/0131/2019 And Benjamin P.J vs. C.P Pappanchan and
    Ors(06.12.2019) MANU/KE/5407/2019)

    Facts of the case

    Petitioner herein is an Indian resident and by faith a Roman Catholic Christian. She lives in
    Kochi, a place governed in law by the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act of 1095 jurisdiction
    and prevalence. Respondent No. 3 is a U.S. resident of Indian descent with ancestral home in
    Thevara, Kochi, who is also a Roman Catholic Christian falling within Act 19055 precincts.
    The marriage between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was solemnised by the Sub
    Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi, viz., the 2nd respondent, reflected in certificate given for
    ExP2.

    The petitioner asserted that the Special Registrar who is originally in charge of solemnizing
    the marriage was absent and unavailable. The Special Marriage Officer's absence was
    communicated to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi, as in the Ext. Letter from the Sub
    Registry Office provided by P1, Edappally. Thus the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi,
    which has the power to perform marriages and register the marriage pursuant to Section 5 of
    the Act, 1095 has solemnised and documented the marriage and thus issued Ext. P2 certificate
    of marriage with date 18.06.2016. After the consummation of the union, the applicant and the
    third respondent started living as husband and wife.

    The third respondent returned to the United States and filed Ext. Form P8 before Citizenship
    and Immigration Programs of the United States, dated 15.08.2016.Howver, as in the Ext. P9
    letter dated 11.01.2017, the said entity sought clarity on the legitimacy of the
    aforementioned marriage solemnised and registered in compliance with Act 1095. It is in
    these conditions that the plaintiff filed this petition to grant the Ext. P2 certificate , a legitimate
    certificate of marriage to be used for processing EXT P8 application.

    The third respondent with the Ext p9 notice given by the aforementioned American authority,
    was asked to elucidate which of the mentioned act does govern the marriage:
    - Special Marriage Act
    - Indian Christian Act
    - Hindu Marriage Act
    - Muslim Law Marriage
    \
    Hence the present writ petition is filed to legitimise their marriage which was in accordance
    with the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act of 1905 which would further be valid for approval
    by the Immigration services of the United States which would in turn help the issuance of an
    immigrant visa to the petitioner.

    Procedural History

    The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking validity of their marriage which was
    in accordance with the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act of 1905( further called as the act
    of 1905) which would validate their status as the married couple and help in legitimising the
    marriage for approval. By United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

    Issue

    The first issue is whether the second respondent was entitled to solemniz the marriage between
    the petitioner and the third respondent and if he was , is the act of 1905 still in force.

    Act/Rule

    Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act, 1095 - Section 5; Constitution Of India - Article 372

    Application

    The court addressing the first major question as to whether the respondent two was entitled to
    solemnize the marriage according to the matrimony under the act of 1905 applies the section
    5 of the said act which describes marriage registrars as meaning; one or more Christians, either
    by name or holding some office for the time being, to be the registrar of marriage or the registrar
    of marriage for any local area defined by declaration in the Cochin Government Gazette.
    Paragraph 3 of Sec. 5 deals with the authority of the Magistrate to be a Marriage Registrar,
    which states that, if there is only one Marriage Registrar in any given local area and that
    Registrar is absent from that local area, or if his office is temporarily vacant, the Magistrate
    having jurisdiction over the local area shall serve as and be the Registrar of Marriage during
    the absence of such a vacuity.

    Adding to this reference, in reference to specify the legitimacy of the act they made a reference
    to article 372 of the constitution which asserts that the laws governing the territory before the
    enactment of the constitution shall be in force until amended by an authorized entity. Hence,
    the act of 1905 still applies.

    The court acknowledged that the registrar had introduced the Ext P12 along with the
    interlocutory application numbered 2246 of 2017, “wherein in accordance with the Section5,
    the government of Kerala appointed one Joy Varghese, Sub Registrar, Edappally, district of
    Ernakulam as the registrar of marriage for the local locality in district of Ernakulam instead of
    one K.P. Xavier. Xavier. Yet as in the Ext. P1 issued by the Sub Registrar, Edappally, dated
    14.06.2016, it is pointed out that Sri Joy Varghese T., appointed as the Marriage Officer, was
    transferred to the Kothamangalam SRO Sub Registrar and therefore the office was vacant.
    Therefore, the court held that it is clear that the 2nd respondent is empowered to conduct the
    duties of a marriage officer under Section 5 of Act, 1905.” The marriage was solemnized by
    the 2nd respondent and Ext. P2 Certificate of Marriage is in compliance with the said Act and
    hence the document is valid.

    Judgment

    Hence considering the aforesaid circumstances the court held that the marriage certificate is a
    legitimate document and the marriage carried by the petitioner and the third respondent was
    done so by complying with the provisions of the act of 1905.

    Kashvi Vachhani
    19B172

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy