Point of Law: Rule 13 makes it clear that in more than one place, the legislature has used the words “parties to the marriage” which means only the spouses and not any other person.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

1. When this writ petition was filed, the 1st petitioner was working abroad, hence the writ petition was filed through his power of attorney holder, Smt. Subaida Beevi. The 2nd petitioner is the Mother-in-law of the 1st petitioner, and she is the mother of Khadeeja K.S. the wife of the 1st petitioner. She filed this writ petition representing her daughter because her daughter was also abroad at the time of filing this writ petition. The 1st petitioner married Khadeeja K.S. on 26.11.2009 as per the religious rites and ceremonies under the Muslim law. It is stated that the marriage was solemnized by the Imam of Salafi Centre, and in the presence of the brother of the bride Mr. Mujeeb Rahman. The marriage was registered under The Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (for short, “the Rules, 2008”). Ext.P1 is the marriage registration certificate. It is submitted that the 4th respondent, who is the father of the 1st petitioner, was not happy with the marriage of the 1st petitioner with Khadeeja. He filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent, the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), seeking cancellation of Ext.P1, the marriage registration certificate alleging that the marriage was not solemnized as per the Muslim law. The 3rd respondent, after hearing the 4th respondent and after examining all the relevant records, passed an order rejecting the complaint as evident by Ext.P2. Thereafter, Ext.P2 was challenged by the 4th respondent by filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the Registrar General of Marriages (common). The 2nd respondent passed an order allowing the complaint preferred by the 4th respondent and cancelled Ext.P1 marriage registration. Ext.P3 is the order. Against Ext.P3 order, the 1st petitioner, along with his wife Khadeeja preferred a revision petition under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2008 before the 1st respondent, the Chief Registrar General of Marriages (common). The revision petition was also rejected as per Ext.P4 order. Consequently, the 3rd respondent issued an order on 16.02.2011 cancelling Ext.P1 certificate of registration of marriage. Ext.P5 is the order. Thereafter, a notice was served on the petitioner by the 3rd respondent directing the petitioner to surrender Ext.P1 marriage certificate. Ext.P6 is the notice. Aggrieved by Exts.P3 to P6, this writ petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents cancelled the marriage certificate based on a complaint filed by the 4th respondent, who is the father of the 1st petitioner and the father-in-law of his wife. It is the submission of the petitioners that the 4th respondent cannot be treated as 'parties to the marriage’ as stated in Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 erred in entertaining the complaint relying on rule 13 of the Rules, 2008 is the contention. It is also submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the marriage and the validity of a marriage can be decided only by a Civil Court. On the other hand, the Government Pleader supported the impugned orders and submitted that there is no need to interfere with the same.

4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Government Pleader.

5. Admittedly, the impugned orders were passed based on a complaint filed by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is the father of the 1st petitioner and the father in law of his wife. Now the question to be decided in this case is whether the 4th respondent has got the authority to file an application under Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008. For deciding the same, it will be better to extract Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008:

“13. Correction and cancellation of entries:

(1) If the Local Registrar is satisfied either suo-motu or on application by the parties, that any entry in the Register of Marriages (Common) is erroneous in form or s