This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that Ext.P1 marriage ceremony certificate issued by the 'Mishra Vivaha Samithy' and Ext.P3 certificate of marriage issued under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 are non est in the eye of law, and also to quash Exts.P5 and P8 orders passed by the Registrar of Marriages, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation dated 29.10.2013, and the District Marriage Registrar (General) and Deputy Director, respectively. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner belongs to Hindu religion, who got married with the 4th respondent, a Christian, as per the marriage ceremony conducted by an organization called 'Mishra Vivaha Samithy', Thiruvananthapuram, having registration No.502/87. Ext.P1 certificate was issued by the said organization, certifying the marriage. On the strength of Ext.P1, according to the petitioner, the 4th respondent secured Ext.P3 certificate from the Registrar under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (for short, 'Rules, 2008'). Thereafter, Ext.P4 application was submitted by the petitioner for cancellation of the entry made in Ext.P3, before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected as per Ext.P5 order, against which, Ext.P6 appeal was preferred before the rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent also rejected the appeal as per Ext.P8 order.

3. The contention advanced by the petitioner is that, petitioner and the 4th respondent belong to two different faiths, and no customary marriage either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Indian Christian Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act had taken place between the parties. Therefore, the entries made in Ext.P3 certificate ought to have been removed by invoking the powers conferred under Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008. The appellate authority also failed to appreciate the law correctly, and therefore, the orders are passed by the primary as well as the appellate authorities without appreciating the legal circumstances provided under the Rules, and therefore, arbitrary and illegal.

4. A statement is filed by the 2nd respondent, disputing the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, in accordance with the information provided by the Local Registrar, petitioner and the 4th respondent appeared before the Registrar and submitted a memorandum in the prescribed form that their marriage was solemnized at 4.45 p.m. at a hall in the presence of independent witnesses, who had also appeared in person and affixed their signature. It is further submitted that, the certificate of the Mishra Vivaha Samithi and the age proof of both the parties were also produced and on the strength of the above documents, the Registrar realized that the marriage was solemnized and the same was registered vide No.2530/13, and accordingly a marriage certificate was issued. The bride and bridegroom had signed in Form 3 of the Marriage Register.

5. It is also stated that, on 14.08.2013, an application was submitted and the 2nd respondent conducted a hearing and in the hearing, petitioner submitted that the marriage was solemnized and she had stayed in the house of the 4th respondent for one day, but she was not interested to continue the relationship, and thereupon, decided to cancel the registration. The 4th respondent stated that he was not in favour of cancelling the registration. Accordingly, after appreciating the powers conferred in accordance with the Rules alone, the application was dismissed. It is also submitted that, since the marriage was registered without any delay, it can only be presumed, in accordance with Ext.P1 certificate, the marriage was solemnized, and therefore, registration was reasonably possible under the Registration Rules, 2008.

6. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, basically supporting the ceremonies underwent by the parties, and admitting that, he is a