This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the second respondent rejecting an application submitted by the petitioner for correction of his name in the Marriage Register maintained under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common), Rules, 2008 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Common Rules' for short). According to the petitioner, his name has been entered as 'Jijomon P.J' in the Marriage Register, which he wants to be corrected as 'Jijomon Pullankunnel John'. He also wants similar corrections to make in respect of the entries regarding the names of his father, father-in- law and mother-in-law also. For the above purpose, he submitted Ext.P5 application. Since no orders were passed on Ext.P5, he had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.15321 of 2012. As per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent to pass final orders on the petitioner's application. Thereupon, the second respondent has passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the petitioner's application.

2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P7 order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The reason stated in Ext.P7 for the rejection is that the corrections sought for were not permissible in view of the fact that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, in which, the Marriage Register and the relevant entry containing the particulars of himself and his marriage has been produced as material objects. The Register has thereafter been entrusted to the second respondent for custody on the specific condition that the same would be produced as and when directed by the Court. In view of the above, according to the second respondent, no corrections can be made in the said Marriage Register until the criminal case is finally disposed of. The counsel for the petitioner Sri. Subhash Chand submits that the criminal case was charged in view of the fact that a Marriage Certificate which he believed to be a properly corrected Certificate had been produced by him for the purpose of going abroad but, the same was found to be a fabricated document on verification. Therefore, a crime has been registered against him. The petitioner contends that he is innocent and that the mischief was committed by a relative of his, whom he had entrusted the task of getting the corrections made. The pendency of the said criminal case, according to the counsel, need not detain the authority from making the corrections, which are to be done only in the Register of the Marriages, as evident from Rule 13 of the Common Rules. For the above reasons, the counsel seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Ext.P7.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. According to the respondents, Ext.P7 has been issued for valid reasons and there are no grounds justifying an interference with the same. Since the petitioner has been made an accused in a criminal case relating to the fabrication of a false Marriage Certificate, it is contended that he is not entitled to get the relevant entries corrected, before the criminal case is finally disposed of.

4. I have heard Advocate S. Subhash Chand who appears for the petitioner as well as Sri. Sandesh Raja who appears for respondents 1 and 2. I have also perused the records as well as the relevant provisions of law.

5. The facts in this case are not disputed. Even according to the petitioner, he is an accused in a criminal case where the allegation is that he had created a false and fabricated Marriage Certificate. True, the case of the petitioner is that he is not guilty of the offence alleged. The fact remains that the Marriage Register and the relevant entry containing the particulars regarding his marriage had been taken into custody as material objects in the criminal case and have been handed over to the second respondent for custody, by the Police. It is a specific condition of such custody that the same would be