SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Ker) 499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
PRINCY, W/O. JOSHY THOMAS – Appellant
Vs.
REGISTRAR GENERAL OF MARRIAGES (COMMON)/THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT - Respondents
WP(C).No. 23731 of 2018
Decided on : 23-07-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR), SRI.DENNY DEVASSY
For the Respondent: SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO, SMT.LAYA SIMON, Adv.

Headnote:

The Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008-Rule 10-The insistence of the Registrar for the personal appearance of the couple to receive the memorandum in Form No.1 is illegal and contrary to the Scheme of the Rules and that in all cases that the memorandum in Form No.1 is not received on the ground that both the spouses are not present from the Local Registrar shall receive the same even if it is presented by a third party or sent through post and that the spouses need to appear before the Registrar concerned prior to the issuance of the certificate so that both could sign the marriage register as per the Rules.

Statement of facts:

The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 06.06.2018 rendered by the 1st respondent-Registrar General of Marriages (Common) whereby the said official has refused to grant permission to the 2nd respondent-Local Registrar to register the marriage of the petitioner, on the ground that, as the name of the petitioner as shown in the application is in variance with her name at the time of her marriage.

Finding of the court:

It is for the 1st respondent-Registrar General to decide on the matter of grant of permission in terms of Rule 10 and may then remit the matter to the 2nd respondent-local Registrar to decide on the registration of the marriage of the petitioner and on the formal issuance of the marriage certificate, subject to the compliance of the conditions in the rules, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sarala Baby's case (supra). The entire formalities in this regard will be completed by the respondents within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

Result: Writ petition (civil) disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 06.06.2018 rendered by the 1st respondent-Registrar General of Marriages (Common) whereby the said official has refused to grant permission to the 2nd respondent-Local Registrar to register the marriage of the petitioner, on the ground that, as the name of the petitioner as shown in the application is in variance with her name at the time of her marriage.

2. The prayers in this writ petition (civil) are as follows:-

“(i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or any other appropriate writ order or direction to set aside Ext P4 order.

(ii) Call for the records relating to the Ext P4 order from the 1st respondent and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the same.

(iii) Direct the respondents to consider the documents produced by the petitioner and issue marriage certificate to the petitioner in the name of Princy within a time frame.

(iv) Issue direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to give an opportunity to adduce evidence if further evidence is required.

(v) Issue such other appropriate reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

3. Heard Sri.K.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Sheejo Chacko, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that her name has been duly entered as “Princy” in the birth and baptism certificate maintained by the parish church concerned as evident from Ext.P2 and that her name has also been duly shown as “Princy” in Ext.P6 Election Commission of India Identity Card, Ext.P6(a) Pancard issued by the Income Tax Department of the Government of India, Ext.P6(b) passport, Ext.P6(c) Aadhar card, Ext.P6(d) driving licence, Ext.P6(e) ration card, etc. That however her parents had entered her name in the school records as “Mary.M.A.” which got recorded also in Ext.P7 SSLC Book. Ext.P8 dated 10.10.2006 is the Gazette of Kerala Publication dated 10.10.2006 in regard to the Notification regarding her change of name, which reads as follows:-

“It is hereby notified for the information of all authorities concerned and the public that -I, Mary, M.A., Kannampuzha House, P.O. Kuzhikkattussery, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District, holder of S.S.L.C Book No.B 247389 with Register No.179959 of March 1981 issued by Department of Education, Government of Kerala and Pre-degree Examination Certificate No.24505 with Register No.35331 of April 1983 issued by University of Calicut dated on 20th July 1983 and B.Com Second Year Examination Certificate No.30628 with Register No.13317 of April 1985 issued by University of Calicut dated on 5th December 1985 and also known as Princy in the Election Identity Card No.KL/10/062/030277 issued by Election Commission of India dated 23-10-1998 and also known as Rosa (Mary) in the Marriage Certificate dated 20.11.1988 issued from St.Thomas Forana Church Ambazhakkad is one and the same person. Hereafter, I will be known by the name Princy Joshy only. This change will come into effect in all records related to me.”

5. The petitioner's name has also been entered as 'Princy' in the passport of her husband as per Ext.P9. That her husband is permanently settled in Spain and steps have been taken for her permanent settlement in Spain, as her husband is suffering from serious cardiac ailments. The petitioner could understand that the Governmental Authorities of that foreign country would insist for a marriage certificate in order to evidence the factum of marriage of the petitioner with her husband. Thereupon the petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 application dated 22.1.2018 as a memorandum to register the said marriage which was preferred before the 2nd respondent-Local Registrar of the Grama Panchayat concerned, under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 200









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top