Orissa High Court
Firoz Khan And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi), Represented ... on 31 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR 2007 Ori 81, 103 (2007) CLT 168, I (2007) DMC 626
Bench: B Das, M Das
1. The Petitioners in the present writ petition have challenged the legality of the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Marriage Officer, Balasore-Opp. party No. 4 in Proceeding No. 33 of 2006, refusing to register the marriage between the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 under the Special Marriage Act., 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The facts as averred in the writ petition reveal that the Petitioner no. 2 is a French National and had been visiting Orissa on the basis of an education Visa since last two years for undergoing a course in Odissi Dance. During such stay at Bhubaneswar in Orissa, she developed acquaintance with the Petitioner No. 1 who is an Indian National which culminated in a proposal of marriage between them, with approval of their respective parents. It further transpires that the Petitioner no. 2 came to India in June, 2006 on the strength of a Tourist Visa issued by Opp. party no. 1, which was endorsed on her French Passport (Annexure-1). In accordance with the said Visa, she has been allowed to stay in India till 1.11.2006. The Petitioners further contend that as per the policy of the Government of India, a Tourist Visa is not ordinarily supposed to be extended, but however, if any Foreign National while staying in India on the strength of such Visa gets married with an Indian Citizen and produces a valid certificate of marriage, the said visa can be converted to a Visa under 'X' category which can be extended periodically up to five years to enable such person to apply and acquire Indian Citizenship under the provisions of the Citizenship Indian Act, 1955.
3. The Petitioners are stated to have got married as per the rites and rituals of Muslims Personal Law before a Kazi in presence of their relatives on 16.9.2006. The certificate granted by the French Ambassy annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition discloses as follows:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Mrss Geraldine, Eve TEDONE born on 19 July 1967 in Marseille (Bouches du Rhone-France) holding French passport no. 01AF78037 issued by the Prefecture of Herault (France) on 22.08.2001.
Residing at La Seyne sur (Mer Var-France), 9 Clos des Muriers is single and unmarried so far.
No objection has been received at this Embassy against the marriage of Miss Geraldine, Eve TEDONE and M. Firoz KHAN. / Done in New Delhi, 29 August 2006 For the Ambassador of France and by order Sdl - Daniel GEISSENHOFFER Adjoint de chancellerie
4. After solemnization of the aforesaid marriage, the Petitioners made an application to Opp. party no. 4 being the Marriage Officer, Balasore, for registering their marriage under the Act which was registered as Proceeding No. 33 of 2006 in Form No. V on 16.9.2006, under Section 15 of the said Act and they also produced all documents in support of their claim. During pendency of the said application, it is claimed that the Petitioner no. 2 has conceived, which would be evident from the medical report dated 13.10.2006 annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
5. The impugned order which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition reads as follows:
ORDER SHEET No. 33/2006 An application for registration of Marriage Under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 have been filed by Firoz Khan S/o. Abdul Makim Khan, At: Abdul Gani Street, Motiganj, P.S./Town. Bls., Dist. Balasore AND Tendone Geraldine Eve Khan D/o. Tendone Jocelyn, At: Abdul Gani Street, Motiganj, P.S./Town. Bls, Dist. Balasore. Both 'At Pre: Abdul Gani Street, Motiganj, P.S./Town. Bls., Dist. Balasore. They have married each other on 16.09.2006 at Abdul Gani Street, Motiganj and blessed with Firoz Khan & Tendone Geraldine Eve Khan.
They have fulfilled all the conditions as laid down Under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, and both of them desire to register their marriage.
The contents of the application are in order. They paid Rs. 20/- (Rupees Twenty) only towards application fee. The contents of the application are entered in the Marriage Notice Book.
Publish a copy of the application in the Office Notice Board for information of the general public.
Put up this file after completion of 30 days from the date of application. Inform the parties to appear before me along with three witnesses after completion of 30 days but within (3 calender months) from the date of application for their registration of marriage.
Documents to be submitted Sd/-A. Nayak, 16.9.06
At the time of Marriage. MARRIAGE OFFICER,
BALASORE.
1) Age proof certificate.
2) Permanent Residential Certificate.
3) Joint post card size photograph.
4) Three witnesses with proof.
5) Indian Citizenship certificate of the Bride.
ORDER
18.10.06: Party present and submitted all the required certificate except the Citizenship certificate of the wife as she is not an Indian national.
The registration of marriage Under Section 15 is hereby refused Under Section 1(2) of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Inform the party accordingly.
Sd/-P.K. Mohanty,
18.10.06
Marriage Officer,
Balasore.
6. A bare reading of the aforesaid order goes to show that the Marriage Officer, Balasore-Opp. party no. 4 under a mis-conception of law has refused to register the marriage by applying the provisions of Section 1(2) of the Act. It also transpires from the said order that the Marriage Officer has assigned absolutely no reasons for coming to the conclusion that the application should be refused.
7. It is trite to mention, that in several decisions, the Supreme Court has laid down that the Courts/quasi judicial authorities/statutory authorities while passing an order on any lis/application/petition, are required to assign reasons on the basis of which the conclusions in such order are reached and findings are recorded, as otherwise the higher forums will not be in a position to test the legality of such findings and conclusions. The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has laid down that reasons introduce clarity in an order and is an indicative of an application of mind, all the more when such order is amenable to further avenue of challenge and reasons are the heartbeats of every conclusion, without which it becomes lifeless. Failure to give reason amounts to denial of justice as the same are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the subject in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity and as such, giving reason for the conclusions is an indispensable part of a sound Judicial system. It has been further held by the Supreme Court that another rational for giving reasons in support of conclusions is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. (See State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar).
8. The order impugned, as quoted above, is clearly lacking in this regard and therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that the said order is enigmatic and has been passed without application of mind.
9. It further appears from the impugned order that Opp. party no. 4 has refused to register the marriage between the Petitioners purportedly under Section 1(2) of the Act. A reading of the said provision clearly shows that it is provided therein that the Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and also applies to the Citizens of India domiciled in the territories to which the Act extends, who are in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. We find, nothing has been brought out to show that the provisions of the Act bars Registration of Marriage between an Indian Citizen and a Citizen of any other country. Section 15 of the Act also imposes no bar for marriage between a Citizen of India and a Citizen of any other country. We also find in the present case that the parties fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in Section 4 of the Act and did not suffer any disability as stated in Sections 4(b) and 4(d) of the Act.
10. The Learned Asst. Solicitor General as well as the Learned Addl. Government Advocate also fairly stated that there cannot be any objection for registering the marriage of the Petitioners by the Marriage Officer, Balasore-Opp. party no. 4.
11. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in allowing the present writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Marriage Officer, Balasore-Opp. party no. 4 in Proceeding No. 33 of 2006 annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. We further direct the Marriage Officer, Balasore-Opp. party No. 4, to register the marriage between the Petitioners immediately, after receipt of the certified copy of this order, under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and issue a certificate to that effect to the Petitioners.
12. In view of- our above directions, we also direct that the Opp. party no. 1 Union of India shall extend the Visa of the Petitioner No. 2, namely, Tedone Geraldine Eve Khan, for a period of one month, within which time the Petitioner no. 2 shall produce the marriage certificate before Opp. party no. 1, who shall thereupon consider her case and pass necessary orders for converting the Visa, one under 'X' category.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
B.P. Das, J.
13. I agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment