RAMESH KUMAR Vs. KANNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Kannapuram Amsom Desom. He was working in a Company in Tokyo in Japan during 1989-1996. He happened to fall in love with a Japanese lady employed in Japan and they decided to get married. Accordingly, when the petitioner's wife reached at Kannapuram Amsom Desom in India, their marriage was solemnised on 27.7.1996, according to the petitioner, in accordance with the customary rites prevalent in the Nair community to which the petitioner belongs. The petitioner's wife is a Buddhist. It is further submitted by the petitioner that their marriage was solemnised under the 'Hindu Marriage Act, 1955'. The petitioner, his wife and the newly born child want to got to Japan for employment purpose. For this purpose, the petitioner requires a Marriage Certificate relating to the marriage of the petitioner with his wife Yumi Ito. The marriage was held on 29.9.1996. The petitioner made an application to local authority. That was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent to issue a Marriage Certificate relating to his marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Kerala Registration of Hindu Marriage Rules, 1957.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. If is stated that no application had been received from the petitioner seeking registration of marriage or copy of the certificate. It is further submitted that the application, if received, will be considered, examined and disposed of in accordance with the law governing the issue. It is also mentioned that as the petitioner's wife is not a Hindu, to whom alone Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 applies, such certificate cannot be issued.

(3.) The petitioner submits that the contention of the first respondent that his wife is not a Hindu and the Hindu Marriage Act is not applicable to their marriage is no correct. Placing reliance on Sec. 2(3) of the said Act, the petitioner contends that the expression 'Hindu' in the Act includes 'any person who is Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion'. Therefore, the petitioner's wife is a person to whom the Act applies. Therefore, their marriage is a Hindu marriage coming within Sec. 5 of the said Act. It is also submitted that the expression 'Hindu' in the Act includes ''a person who, though not a Hindu by religion, is nevertheless a person to whom this Act applies''. Therefore, by Sec. 2(1)(b) read with sub-section 3 of Sec. 2, the petitioner submits that the Act applies to the petitioner's wife. Therefore, he is entitled to a Certificate.