[Breaking] Indians can marry foreigners under Special Marriage Act

Indian Parliament enacted the Special Marriage Act in the year 1954 providing an opportunity to all Indian nationals, including those who are resident of foreign countries to marry irrespective of their religious faith OR belief. In certain cases Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides a special form of marriage; provides registration of such marriages and also provides provisions for divorce.

In the give case between Devika Raj v. State of Kerala, came before the Honourable High Court of Kerala, decision of the Marriage Registration Officer prohibiting the petitioner from marrying a Canadian citizen under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 on the ground that, said Act does not apply in marrying a foreign national.

Hence, the question before the Honourable High Court was that, whether Indians can marry foreigners under Special Marriage Act? In this regard, court referred to earlier judgement in Rajeev v. State of Kerala ((2001 (1) KLT 578)), which relied on a decision of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Marian Eva v. State of Himachal Pradesh ((AIR 1993 Himachal Pradesh 7)), where the Court categorically found that the Special Marriage Act does not contain any prohibition for solemnisation of the marriage, if one of the parties is a foreigner.

In order to get a marriage registered under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 the parties shall comply with the provisions of Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In the given case, court observed that, the petitioner has duly complied said provisions.

High Court further interpreted the term “person” as mentioned in Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which does not indicate that either one of the parties or both the parties should be citizens of India.

In the light of above mentioned points, Honourable High Court allowed the petitioner to contract the marriage as she intended and instructed the Marriage Registration Officer to register their marriage under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Read Full Judgement of Devika Raj v. State of Kerala

[Breaking] No night shifts for women employees in Kerala after 10 PM

In order to ensure the safety of women employees, Honourable High Court of Kerala held that, women employees cannot be asked to work beyond 10 PM. While considering the petition filed by a woman employee of Seetharam Textiles, Kerala High Court observed that, now a days, crime rate against woman are increasing, and therefore it is essential to have sufficient precautionary measures to safeguard working woman.

In the present, case between CL Cicily v. Seetharam Textiles Ltd., the petitioner alleged that, compelling a women employee to work during night shifts are violating Section 66(1) (b) of the Factories Act, 1948. By virtue of Section 66(1) (b) of the Factories Act, 1948;

No woman shall be required or allowed to work in any factory except between the hours of 6 A.M. and 7 P.M.: Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, in respect of any factory or group or class or description of factories, vary the limits laid down in clause (b), but so that no such variation shall authorize the employment of any woman between the hours of 10 P.M. and 5 A.M.

Kerala High Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the employer to strictly adhere with the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948. Court further stated that, women employees can be employed only up to 10:00 PM, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions issued by the State Government of Kerala vide its Circular dated 07.06.2003. Said circular read as follows;

That, women can be employed till 10 P.M. provided that the employer must provide free transport facilities to the women; ensure the presence of minimum of five workers including two women in a shift; and that the spread over time to a worker in a day shall not exceed 9 hours including rest period.

Read full judgement of CL Cicily v. Seetharam Textiles Ltd.

Government affidavit on benefits to transgender

Division Bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A.M. Shaffique, while considering a petition filed by High Court lawyer Basil Attipety, seeking a directive to the State government to grant Rs.10,000 as allowance to every transgender in the State a month and direct the Social Justice and Empowerment Department to provide free education, food, shelter, clothing, and monetary allowance to them, directed the State government to file an affidavit in response to a public interest petition seeking a directive to provide all benefits and privileges to transgender in the State as directed by the Supreme Court.

Petitioner further contented that, even though Tamil Nadu and New Delhi had decided to implement the directions which includes free housing program, free admission in government colleges with full scholarship for higher studies and alternative sources of livelihood, Kerala had not initiated any steps in this regard. However, the government pleader submitted that the enumeration of transgender in the state was on.

No intervention in Light Metro plan: Kerala High Court

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A.M. Shaffique,  while considering a writ petition filed by T.V. Sankaranarayanan of Thiruvananthapuram, who said that the State government was going ahead with a plan to entrust the consultancy to the DMRC without calling for a global tender, declined to intervene in issues regarding implementation of the proposed Monorail / Light Metro projects in Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode.

Court further said that, these were matters to be decided by the government at the time of implementation of the proposal, and as the matter stood, there was no finality on the issues. Therefore, the writ petition was premature. At this stage, the court did not intend to interfere in the matter.

Kerala to move SC on mineral sand mining

The Industry Ministry informed on Saturday that it would request in the Supreme Court against the High Court Judgment on mineral sand mining case. The Industry Minister additionally opined that the UDF ought to consider the issue.

The High Court on Friday controlled the state government to consider 29 applications for mining in the private district. Since mining is a matter under the Union law the state’s power in it is constrained, the court had watched.

The state government has drawn flak over eighteen months to document an advance on the issue in the High Court. In perspective of this, Industry Minister P.K. Kunhalikkutty and Indian Union Muslim League proposed that the matter ought to be examined in the UDF.

The High Court on Friday requested that the state ought to legitimately consider applications of a private firm for mineral sand mining in the private part. There ought not be conflicting stand towards diverse applications at better places presented by the same organization, the court ruled. The court had additionally made it clear that mining is a subject that has a place with the Center and that the state has just constrained power in the issue.

A division bench containing Justice Thottathil Radhakrishanan and Babu Mathew, P. Joseph issued the decision releasing a claim put together by the state government testing a single judge judge’s mandate in February 2013 to consider the advance of the applicants.