1. In view of the directions of the Apex Court in Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, 2006 (1) KLT 791, the Government of Kerala issued the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, hereinafter referred to as the "Common Rules". The question raised in this writ petition is as to whether both the parties to the marriage have to be present in person before the authority for registration of a marriage under the Common Rules.

2. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 8.3.2009. The couple submitted the memorandum for registration of their marriage, in Form No.1 prescribed under the Common Rules before the Local Registrar, an officer so appointed in terms of Rule 5 of the Common Rules. The petitioner says that the certificate of marriage issued by the religious authority concerned, as document in proof of the marriage, and other relevant materials were produced along with the memorandum. The husband of the petitioner returned to a foreign country where he works. The petitioner complains that the Local Registrar is insisting on the presence of both the parties to the marriage for registration. That complaint is not disputed, but is corroborated by the submissions on behalf of the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the provisions in Rule 9 of the Common Rules, there is no compulsion that both the parties to the marriage should be present before the Local Registrar. He justifies that view on the Common Rules by pointing out that the registration under the Common Rules cannot constitute a marriage but such registration is intended only to evidence a marriage which is solemnized otherwise.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the insistence on the appearance of both the parties to the marriage is only to exclude possible fraud.

5. In Seema (supra), it was laid down that if the record of marriage is kept, to a large extent, dispute concerning solemnization of marriages could be avoided. If marriage is registered, it provides evidence of marriage having taken place and would provide a rebutable presumption of the marriage having taken place, though the registration itself cannot be a proof of valid marriage per se, and would not be the determinative factor regarding validity of a marriage, though such registration has great evidentiary value. Taking note of the views of the National Commission for Women that in most cases non-registration of marriages affects the women to a great measure, it was held that it would be in the interest of the society that marriages aremade compulsorily registrable. It was accordingly that directions were issued for framing rules, following which, the Rules in hand were made.

6. Rule 6 of the Common Rules states that all marriages solemnized in the State, after the commencement of the Rules, shall compulsorily be registered irrespective of religion of the parties; except in cases where the marriage is compulsorily registrable under any other statutory provision or registration of such marriage is optional under any other statutory provisions and has been so registered. Therefore, the Common Rules, in no manner, deal with the solemnization of marriage but only provide for registration of marriages which are solemnized otherwise. Law recognises solemnization of marriage as per religious rites and solemnization before marriage officers appointed under statutory provisions like the Special Marriage Act, 1954. These factors are, in no way, affected by the coming into force of the Common Rules. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 9 providesthat in the case of a marriage solemnized before a Marriage Officer appointed under any statutory provisions, the entries made in the Register of Marriages or any other register maintained for that purpose and certified by the Marriage Officer may be the document in proof of the marriage for the purpose of registration of the marriage under the Common Rules. As regards a marriage solemnized as per reli