PRADEEP KODIVEEDU CLETUS Vs. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Local Registrar of Marriages under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (the Rules) permit appearance of parties for compliance of the requirements of the Rules through video conferencing, is the moot question that falls for consideration in this matter.

(2.) The relevant facts are the following : The first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. The petitioners were Indian citizens. The first petitioner hails from Alappuzha District and the second petitioner hails from Kollam District. The first petitioner married the second petitioner on 23.01.2000 at St. Casimir's Church, Kadavoor in Kollam District. The first petitioner who was serving the Indian Space Research Organisation took up a foreign assignment in Ireland and was accordingly residing with his family in the said country since 2001. During 2009, the petitioners acquired Irish citizenship. Later, they have applied for and obtained registration as overseas citizens of India as well. It is stated by the petitioners that the employer of the first petitioner namely, M/s. Intel Corporation, Ireland re-located the first petitioner to USA during 2016 and consequently the petitioners are residing with their family in USA since 2016 on the strength of a L-1 Visa which the first petitioner holds and L-2 Visas which the second petitioner and her children hold.

(3.) It is stated by the petitioners that the Immigration Laws in USA have undergone drastic changes in the recent past and the first petitioner can continue to work in the said country only by upgrading his Visa to permanent resident status. Likewise, it is stated by the petitioners that the second petitioner also needs to upgrade her Visa to permanent resident status to continue to live with the first petitioner. In order to apply for permanent resident status in USA, it is stated that the petitioners need to provide their marriage certificate issued by the competent authority in their country along with their applications. The petitioners have, therefore, applied through their power holder, the father of the second petitioner for registration of their marriage under the Rules. On the said application, the first respondent, the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), having found after due enquiry that the first petitioner married the second petitioner on 201.2000, called upon the petitioners to appear before him to put their signatures in the Register of Marriages maintained under the Rules. Ext. P4 is the communication issued by the first respondent in this connection to the power holder of the petitioners. On receipt of Ext. P4 communication, the power holder of the petitioners sent Ext. P5 communication to the first respondent expressing the inability of the petitioners to appear in person before the first respondent. According to the first respondent, in the light of the provision contained in Rule 11, the marriage cannot be registered under the Rules without the parties being present before him. Consequently, the first respondent issued Ext. P6 communication to the power holder of the petitioners by which the power holder of the petitioners was informed that the application preferred by the petitioners for registration of their marriage would stand dismissed. Exts. P4 and P6 communications are under challenge in the writ petition.