In extraordinary situations, innovative ways, including the use of technology, can be adopted to fulfill statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

This Writ Petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondents to process Ext.P3 memorandum submitted by the petitioners for registration of their marriage through video conferencing.

2. The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that their marriage was solemnised on 30.6.1997 as evidenced by Ext.P1 Marriage Certificate. They have three children born in their wedlock. The petitioners were employed in the United Arab Emirates. In June 2018, the petitioners migrated to Australia on a temporary visa. Unfortunately, due to a change in the immigration rules of that country, they are unable to get permanent residence. The Immigration Authorities have insisted for a certificate of registration of the marriage of the petitioners, to process their application for permanent status. Ergo, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P3 memorandum, through their power of attorney holder, before the 1st respondent, seeking registration of their marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (in short 'Rules'). They are unable travel to India due to the travel restrictions imposed in Australia because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners have been informed by their power of attorney holder that the 1st respondent, as a condition precedent to process the memorandum, is insisting that the petitioners have to personally appear before him and subscribe their signatures in the relevant registers. This Court in Mathew T.K. v. Secretary, Registrar of Marriage (2020 (4) KHC 456) and a plethora of precedents has held that the registration of marriage can be conducted through video conferencing. The petitioners are prepared to appear through video conferencing and have authorised their power of attorney holder to subscribe their signatures. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri. Jacob P. Alex, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Manilal, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the first respondent has only a limited role in the matter, by just transmitting the memorandum to the second respondent – the competent authority -which he would do, if directed.

5. Human race is going through difficult times, due to the pandemic, but life cannot be brought to a grinding halt in this unprecedented era. We have to devise ways and means to reconcile with these times and the law and its procedure by adopting to innovative ways, including the use of technology which is in consonance with law. The world over has effectively used technology to march forward with life.

6. It is undisputed, that the petitioners are husband and wife as evidenced by Ext.P1 and P2 certificates. They have also executed Exts.P4 and P5 powers of attorney in favour of their agent, who has submitted Ext.P3 memorandum for registration of marriage. It is not practically possible for the petitioners to travel all the way from Australia during this turbulent period, to subscribe their signatures in the registers of the respondents. Strict enforcement of the procedure cannot be insisted upon in this extra-ordinary situation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have to be permitted to register their marriage through video conferencing and be represented through their power of attorney and if needed even subscribe their signatures on such applications and other documents by using digital signature which would fulfill the statutory requirements.

In the result, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I dispose the Writ Petition by issuing the following directions:

(i) The 1st respondent shall forthwith transmit Ext.P3 memorandum to the 2nd respondent – the competent authority – for registration of the marriage of the petitioners.

(ii) The Power of Attorney holder of the petitioners shall produce a cop