HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners lived together for a brief period in November 2014. In order to avoid legal repercussions and social issues, they got their marriage registered under Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity) as per Ext.P1 certificate of marriage. Shortly thereafter, their relationship ran into rough weather, and they have been living separately for the last 10 years. The 1st petitioner is a Muslim, and the 2 nd petitioner is a Hindu. As their marriage was not solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, there is no valid marriage. Yet, as their marriage is improperly registered, it gives a false impression that they are legally married. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a joint application before the 4th respondent to cancel the certificate. But, by Ext.P3 communication, the 4th respondent rejected the application, stating that there is no provision to cancel the certificate. Rule 13 of the Rules empowers the 4th respondent to cancel the certificate. It is without considering the above rule that the impugned order has been passed. Ext.P3 communication is unjustifiable.

(2.) The 3rd respondent has filed a statement asserting that the marriage was registered as per the Rules. The 4th respondent registered the marriage based on Annexure R3 (a) memorandum, Annexure R3 (c) declaration issued by a member of the Local Self Government Institution ('LSGI', in short) and the supporting documents affirming that the petitioners' marriage was solemnised on 19/10/2014 at the residence of the 2nd petitioner. The statements of the petitioners and their witnesses corroborated the documents. The petitioners have not produced any record to prove that their marriage was improperly or fraudulently registered, which is mandatory to cancel the certificate under Rule 13. There is no illegality in Ext.P3 communication.

(3.) Heard, Sri. Cibi Thomas, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader and Sri. R. Surendran, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.