Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : S. Vinod Bhat, Anagha Lakshmy Raman, V. Namitha, Gitanjali Sadan Pillai
For the Respondents: R. Rajpradeep, Prasudha S., P. Jeril Babu, Riyal Devassy, Sreedevi S.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The marriage was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on 27.01.2017, between the petitioner, originally named Sreeja S., and her husband, Ahmad Muhsin (!) .

2. The petitioner changed her name to "Aayisha Muhsin" in 2023, with proper notification published in the Kerala Gazette, and this name change is reflected in various official documents such as her birth certificate, passport, Aadhaar card, driving license, PAN card, electoral ID, and her husband's passport (!) .

3. The petitioner seeks to amend her marriage certificate to reflect her new name "Aayisha Muhsin" so she can apply for a family visa in the UAE, where her husband is employed. The marriage certificate was issued with her original name "Sreeja," and she requests a correction (!) .

4. The relevant rules for marriage registration under the Rules 2008 specify that corrections in material particulars like name require prior sanction from the Registrar General and are generally limited to errors in form or substance, not major changes such as a complete name change (!) .

5. The rules prohibit major amendments to the marriage register, including changing the name, unless the correction is due to an error or fraud. Since the petitioner’s name change is voluntary and not due to an error in the original entry, such a correction is considered a major change and not permissible under the rules (!) .

6. The court acknowledged that while the rules restrict major amendments, it has the authority under extraordinary jurisdiction to do justice in specific cases, especially when it aligns with the wishes of the family and the petitioner’s desire to lead a happy married life (!) (!) .

7. The court emphasized that there is no prohibition in Islamic customs or religion preventing the petitioner from retaining her original name "Sreeja" after converting to Islam. The petitioner’s name does not impede her religious practice or her marital relationship (!) (!) .

8. The court noted that the husband is in the UAE and has not appeared before the court but is willing to appear online. The petitioner’s parents have no objection to her name change and support her decision (!) .

9. Considering the circumstances, including the family’s wishes and the petitioner’s intent, the court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to permit the correction of the marriage register by adding an additional entry with the new name "Aayisha Muhsin" and issuing a corrected marriage certificate (!) (!) .

10. The respondents are directed to incorporate the new name in the marriage register and issue a revised marriage certificate within one month of receiving a certified copy of the court judgment (!) .

Would you like a detailed legal analysis or assistance with drafting related documents?