The registrar cannot cancel a marriage registration without sufficient proof of an erroneous entry.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.DIAS, J.

1.The petitioners lived together for a brief period in November 2014. In order to avoid legal repercussions and social issues, they got their marriage registered under Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity) as per Ext.P1 certificate of marriage. Shortly thereafter, their relationship ran into rough weather, and they have been living separately for the last 10 years. The 1^st petitioner is a Muslim, and the 2^nd petitioner is a Hindu. As their marriage was not solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, there is no valid marriage. Yet, as their marriage is improperly registered, it gives a false impression that they are legally married. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a joint application before the 4^th respondent to cancel the certificate. But, by Ext.P3 communication, the 4^th respondent rejected the application, stating that there is no provision to cancel the certificate. Rule 13 of the Rules empowers the 4^th respondent to cancel the certificate. It is without considering the above rule that the impugned order has been passed. Ext.P3 communication is unjustifiable.

2.The 3^rd respondent has filed a statement asserting that the marriage was registered as per the Rules. The 4^th respondent registered the marriage based on Annexure R3 (a) memorandum, Annexure R3 (c) declaration issued by a member of the Local Self Government Institution (‘LSGI’, in short) and the supporting documents affirming that the petitioners’ marriage was solemnised on 19.10.2014 at the residence of the 2^nd petitioner. The statements of the petitioners and their witnesses corroborated the documents. The petitioners have not produced any record to prove that their marriage was improperly or fraudulently registered, which is mandatory to cancel the certificate under Rule 13. There is no illegality in Ext.P3 communication.

3.Heard, Sri. Cibi Thomas, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader and Sri. R. Surendran, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent.

4.There is no dispute that the petitioners had jointly submitted Ann.R3 (a) memorandum affirming that their marriage was solemnised on 19.10.2014 at the 2^nd petitioner’s residence. The member of an LSGI also issued Ann.R.3(c) certifying to have witnessed the solemnisation of the petitioners’ marriage. On the date of registration of the marriage, the petitioners and their witnesses testified that the marriage was solemnised on 19.10.2014. It was on the strength of the above documents and testimonies that the 4^th respondent registered the marriage and issued Ext.P1 certificate.

5. The petitioners now contend that, since they belong to different religions and have not solemnised their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, their marriage is invalid. Hence, the certificate may be cancelled under Rule 13 of the Rules.

6. In the above context, it is necessary to refer to Rule 13 of Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, which reads as follows:

“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 substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he shall subject to conditions in sub-rule (2), make suitable corrections including cancellation of registration, noting the evidence for such corrections in the margin of the Register of Marriages (Common), without any alteration of the original entry and shall sign the marginal entry with the date of correction or cancellation and shall forward the particulars of the corrections to the Registrar General concerned.

(2) All corrections in material particulars like name, age, date etc., and cancellation shall be done only with the sanction of the Registrar General concerned: Provided that no such correction or cancellation shall be made without affording a reasonable op