SARALA BABY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are married ladies. Their husbands are working abroad. They are desirous of joining their husbands. It appears, for obtaining necessary travel documents, they are required to produce certificates showing registration of their marriage. In all these cases, the marriages took place as per the customary rites. In some of these cases, the solemnization of the marriage took place before the introduction of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The marriages solemnized before or after the commencement of the Rules can be registered under the Rules. So, the petitioners moved the respective Local Registrars, appointed under R.5 of the Rules, by filing a memorandum in duplicate in Form No. I appended to the Rules. In these cases, except in WP (C) No. 25707/2009, the memoranda submitted in Form No. I were not accepted by the respective Local Registrars, for the reason that they were not presented in person by the husband and wife. In WP (C) No. 25707/2009, the memorandum in Form No. I was received, but the details of the marriage were not entered in the Register of Marriages maintained in Form No. III and the marriage certificate was not issued to the petitioner within five days, as stipulated under R.11, for the reason that her husband did not appear in person and sign the register maintained in Form No. III. In the above factual background, these Writ Petitions were filed, praying, inter alia, for a direction to the Local Registrar concerned to receive the memorandum in Form No. I, register the marriage and issue the marriage certificate in Form No. IV under R.11 of the Rules, without insisting personal appearance of the spouses or their signatures in the Marriage Register maintained in Form No. III.

(2.) In WP (C) No. 25707/2009, the validity of R.8 and R.9 of the Rules is also under challenge. The petitioner therein seeks a declaration that R.8 and R.9 are unconstitutional to the extent they insist signature of both the parties to the marriage, for registration of the marriage.

(3.) When the Writ Petitions were heard, the learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the decision rendered by the said Judge in Nishana Mol v. Alappuzha Municipality, 2009 (3) KHC 284 : 2009 (3) KLT 251 : ILR 2009 (3) Ker. 270 : 2009 (2) KLJ 789 : AIR 2009 Ker. 203. The learned Judge also felt that it is impossible for the spouse in certain cases to appear in person. So, to have an authoritative pronouncement on the point whether the insistence of personal appearance of both the parties to the marriage is warranted in the light of the scheme of the Rules, the learned Single Judge referred the Writ Petitions to be heard by the Division Bench.