SAJI VARGHESE Vs. REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES (COMMON) AND SECRETARY VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers :-

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the Vazhappally Grama Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The substantial prayer sought for is for a direction to the respondents to register the marriage of the petitioner under the Common Rules without insisting the presence of the petitioner's wife, who is unable to travel to India from UK. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and his wife July Sebastian were married on 8.10.2001 at the Veroor St. Joseph Church as per the rites and customs of the community. Ext.P1 is the marriage certificate. It is stated that the petitioner's wife is presently working as a nurse in the United Kingdom and that she is unable to travel to India because of the prevalent pandemic situation. The petitioner had taken all due steps for the registration of his marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008 and the application was allowed on 27.12.2019. It is submitted that though the petitioner had sought permission for registration of the marriage under the Common Rules without insisting the presence of his wife, the said request was rejected by Ext.P6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decisions of this Court in Pradeep Kodiveedu Cleetus and another v. Local Registrar of Marriages (Common) Kollam and others,2018 1 KHC 280 and Mathew T. K. v. Secretary and Registrar of Marriages, Alappuzha and another,2020 4 KHC 456 that the respondents are liable to permit the registration of the marriage by ensuring the presence of the petitioner's wife through video conferencing and by permitting an authorised representative to sign in the Marriage Register. It is submitted that this Court in Mathew T. K.'s case had considered an identical situation and had held that the presence of the parties to the marriage through video conferencing would serve the purpose of personal presence in a case where what is sought to be registered is an already solemnized marriage. It is stated that this Court had permitted the marriage to be registered by ensuring the presence of both the parties to the marriage by video conferencing and by permitting authorised representatives of the bride and the bride groom to sign in the Marriage Register for and on behalf of the couple.