MATHEW ANIL PARAKKAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 3rd respondent to correct his name in Ext.P1 Marriage Certificate as 'Mathew Anil Parakkal' instead of 'Mathew Anil'. It is his case in the writ petition that, at the time of his marriage to Ponnambily Paul Parathazham, D/o.Emmanual George Parathazham, residing in Switzerland, on 14.05.2018, as per the Special Marriage Act , he had produced the passport that he was then holding as proof of name before the said Marriage Officer. In the said passport his name was shown as 'Mathew Anil' and the address was shown as Parakkal House. In the Marriage Certificate, therefore, his name came to be entered as Mathew Anil.

(2.) After his marriage, the petitioner returned to Dubai, where he was working, but later decided to resign his job at Dubai and join his wife at Switzerland for leading a matrimonial life there. When he applied to the Swiss authorities for a visa, and preferred an application for the same along with the Marriage Certificate, it was pointed out by the Swiss authorities that the family name of the petitioner was not written along with the name of the petitioner in the Marriage Certificate and hence that the visa could not be issued in the name of 'Mathew Anil Parakkal'. The petitioner thereupon applied for a change of his name in the passport and a new passport was issued to him (Ext.P5), where his given name was shown as 'Mathew Anil' and his surname as 'Parakkal'. Corresponding changes were also effected in the Aadhar Card as evident from Ext.P2 and in the Pan Card as evidenced by Ext.P3. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached the Marriage Registrar, the 3 rd respondent herein, for a change of his name in the Marriage Certificate, the request was turned down by the 3 rd respondent on the ground that he was not empowered, in terms of the Special Marriage Act , to effect any change in the Marriage Certificate.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent, wherein a reference is made to Section 11 of the Special Marriage Act as also Section 49(1) of the said Act, to point out that the Marriage Officer has very limited powers under the Act to correct errors noticed in the Marriage Certificate. It is stated that any such error can be corrected only within a month after the discovery of the error and, since in the instant case, the Marriage Certificate (Ext.P1) was issued on 14.05.2018 and the request for correction was received more than a year later, it was not possible for the 3 rd respondent to effect the corrections sought for. The procedure to be followed for effecting a correction in the entry in the Marriage Certificate Book is also detailed in the counter affidavit.