Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are married ladies. Their husbands are working abroad. They are desirous of joining their husbands. It appears, for obtaining necessary travel documents, they are required to produce certificates showing registration of their marriage. In all these cases, the marriages took place as per the customary rites. In some of these cases, the solemnization of the marriage took place before the introduction of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The marriages solemnized before or after the commencement of the Rules can be registered under the Rules. So, the petitioners moved the respective Local Registrars, appointed under Rule 5 of the Rules, by filing a memorandum in duplicate in Form No.I appended to the Rules. In these cases, except in W.P.(C) No.25707/2009, the memoranda submitted in Form No.I were not accepted by the respective Local Registrars, for the reason that they were not presented in person by the husband and wife. In W.P.(C) No.25707/2009, the memorandum in Form No.I was received, but the details of the marriage were not entered in the Register of Marriages maintained in Form No.III and the marriage certificate was not issued to the petitioner within five days, as stipulated under Rule 11, for the reason that her husband did not appear in person and sign the register maintained in Form No.III. In the above factual background, these Writ Petitions were filed, praying, inter alia, for a direction to the Local Registrar concerned to receive the memorandum in Form No.I, register the marriage and issue the marriage certificate in Form No.IV under Rule 11 of the Rules, without insisting personal appearance of the spouses or their signatures in the Marriage Register maintained in Form No.III.

2. In W.P.(C) No.25707/2009, the validity of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules is also under challenge. The petitioner therein seeks a declaration that Rules 8 and 9 are unconstitutional to the extent they insist signature of both the parties to the marriage, for registration of the marriage.

3. When the Writ Petitions were heard, the learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the decision rendered by the said Judge in Nishana Mol v. Alappuzha Municipality [2009 (3) KLT 251]. The learned Judge also felt that it is impossible for the spouse in certain cases to appear in person. So, to have an authoritative pronouncement on the point whether the insistence of personal appearance of both the parties to the marriage is warranted in the light of the scheme of the Rules, the learned Single Judge referred the Writ Petitions to be heard by the Division Bench.

4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the inconvenience that is being caused to the couples, who want to go abroad. They also brought to our notice the plight of wives who are trying to secure travel documents to join their husbands abroad. If registration of the marriage requires the presence of their husbands also, that will cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. Therefore, insistence of the presence of both the spouses for the registration of the marriage in Form No.III, is arbitrary and irrational and therefore, unconstitutional, it is contended.

5. The learned senior Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that if the marriage is registered without the presence of both the spouses, the provision can be put to great abuse. One of the parties can create a document regarding the marriage without the knowledge or consent of the other. So, the rule making authority has deliberately provided for the appearance of both the parties to the marriage in person and for putting their signatures in the marriage register, with a purpose. In support of his submissions, the learned senior Government Pleader brought to our notice the decisions of this Court in Deepak Krishna v. District Registrar [