WILSON ABRAHAM Vs. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife. They are represented in this proceedings by their power of attorney holder. They got married on 08.09.1986 at St.George Cathedral Church, Kodhamangalam under Christian religious rites. Petitioners 1 and 2 are presently residing in Goa where they are employed. The second petitioner who is an aided school teacher and due to retire soon, needs to produce her marriage certificate for preparing her pension papers. Since petitioners 1 and 2 did not register their marriage, they preferred Ext.P1 application before the first respondent through their power of attorney holder, the third petitioner for registration of their marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (the Rules). It is stated that the third respondent has accorded permission for registration of the marriage of petitioners 1 and 2 in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules. Petitioners 1 and 2 are unable to appear before the first respondent for compliance of the provisions contained in the Rules on account of the travel restrictions imposed due to the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners, therefore, seek direction to the first respondent to complete the formalities concerning registration of their marriage through video conferencing and issue marriage certificate without insisting their appearance and signature. It stated by the petitioners that they have duly authorised their power of attorney holder, the third petitioner to sign in the marriage register on their behalf.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.

(3.) It is seen that an identical matter has been disposed of by this court in terms of the judgment in Mathew T.K. v. Secretary and Registrar of Marriages, Alappuzha and Another, 2020(4) KHC 456.