The main legal point established is that under the Hindu Marriage Act and Kerala Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, both spouses must sign the marriage report and the Form No.II register for the registration of their marriage.

It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with the 4th respondent (Jai Prakash Ganesh) was duly solemnized on 27.08.1998, at the Madhwa Mandiram Trust, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is further stated that prior to the marriage, the parties have entered into an agreement for marriage and the said agreement at Ext.P3 has been duly registered before the 3rd respondent, Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrars Office, Ernakulam. The petitioner and the 4th respondent belong to Hindu religion and their marriage has been solemnized in the Kalyanamandapam at the Madhwa Mandiram Trust, Ernakulam, as evident from Ext.P2 certificate of marriage dated 27.08.1998, issued by the said organization. It is the case of the petitioner that though the marriage was thus got duly solemnized in accordance with the provisions contained in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the parties had inadvertently omitted to get their factum of solemnization of their marriage registered in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1957, which has been framed by virtue of the enabling provisions contained in Section 8(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner and the 4th respondent have been settled in the United States of America for quite some time and two children (daughters) have been born in that wedlock.

It is the further case of the petitioner that the relationship between the petitioner and the 4th respondent got strained and they are living apart. The petitioner wanted to institute divorce proceedings before the competent court in the U.S.A. and she has been advised that one of the vital documents required for presentation of the application for divorce or dissolution of marriage as per the Rules of court practice prevailing in that foreign country is that the marriage certificate should also be produced to establish the factum of marriage between the parties.

Thereupon the petitioner sought to get the factum of the solemnization of marriage with the 4th respondent, registered in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1957. Ext.P4 is the application dated 16.04.2018 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent who is stated to be the competent marriage Registrar in that regard. The petitioner's contention is that petitioner could reliably learn from the office of the 2nd respondent that the application cannot be entertained unless it is signed by both the spouses (viz., the petitioner and the 4th respondent). The petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application for issuance of marriage certificate under the provisions of the Kerala Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1957, on the basis of Ext.P3 registered agreement regarding the marriage between the parties. However the petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that such an application cannot be entertained and that the petitioner has to submit the application in Form No.I prescribed under Rule 6 of the above said Rules, and that the said application should be duly signed by both the spouses. It appears that the 4th respondent is not willing to cooperate with the petitioner in the matter of getting their marriage registered under the above Rules, because of differences of opinion between the spouses. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner filed this instant Writ Petition (Civil) under the enabling provisions contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue marriage certificate to the petitioner as prayed for in Exhibit P4 application without insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioner or her spouse.

(II) Issue such other further reliefs as the necessary in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Sri. P.B. Krishnan, learned Advocate instructed by Sri. Vishak K. Johnso