Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Aayisha Muhsin W/o Ahmad Muhsin M. – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, Principal Registrar General - Marriages (Common) – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 38145 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage was solemnized and petitioner changed her name. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. rules on marriage certificate corrections discussed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. inquiry regarding husband's involvement in the petition. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. extraordinary jurisdiction being considered for name change. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final ruling on allowing name change and issuing a new certificate. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
1. Sreeja S. fell in love with Ahmad Muhsin M. That is the beauty of secular India, where a person in one religion can marry a person following another religion. The marriage was solemnised on 27.01.2017 as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short ‘Act 1954’). That is the beauty of the Act 1954, which recognises marriages between interreligious couples without requiring conversion. Following the marriage on 27.01.2017, it appears that Sreeja intends to adopt her husband's Islamic faith. There is no issue or prohibition with that if it is a voluntary decision by Sreeja, made without coercion or compulsion by Ahmad Muhsin M., her husband. However, Sreeja also changed her name to “Aayisha Muhsin” in 2023 (approximately 6 years after her marriage), a name commonly used by Muslims.
2. The name was changed in the year 2023 after notifying the same in the Kerala Gazette, as evident by Ext.P2. Pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, the name stands changed in all of the documents and identity cards, including Birth Certificate as evident by Ext.P3, Indian Passport as evident by Ext.P4, revised Aadhaar Card as evident by Ext.P5 (originally issued on 18.08.2012), and revised Driving License as evident by Ext.P6 (originally issued on 13.07.2012). She also changed her name on the PAN Card, and Ext.P7 is the revised PAN Card. Ext.P8 is the Electoral Photo Identity Card issued to Sreeja in her name as “Aayisha Muhsin”. Ext.P9 is the Ration Card showing her present name as “Aayisha Muhsin”. It is stated that Sreeja’s husband’s passport has also been revised to reflect the change of name of the petitioner, as evident by Ext.P10. Her husband is working in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). She wants to join her husband in the UAE.
3. The Federal Authority for Identity, Citizenship, Customs, and Port Security (ICP) is the authority that issues family visas in the UAE. It is submitted that the application for a family visa must include the passports of the wife and children, as well as the attested marriage certificate, among other documents. It is the case of Sreeja, now known as ‘Aayisha Muhsin’, that, for the purpose of applying for a family visa, her marriage to Ahmad Muhsin was registered under the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008 (for short, “Rules 2008”). Ext.P13 is the marriage certificate. Since Ext.P13 certificate of marriage stands issued in the name of “Sreeja” instead of her present name “Aayisha Muhsin” she wants a correction of Ext.P13 certificate of marriage. The petitioner submitted an application, as evident by Ext.P14. However, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner of the inability to effect changes to the certificate of marriage, citing the 1st respondent's letter dated Ext.P16. Ext.P15 is the communication of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed by Sreeja in her new name “Aayisha Muhsin.”
4. Heard.
5. This Court perused Ext.P15 communication of the 3rd respondent. In Ext.P15, it is stated that, pursuant to the Government of Kerala's clarification in Ext. P16, major changes cannot be made to the marriage certificate. However, as clarified in Ext.P15, if the name of a person is changed, documents proving the change can be produced along with the marriage certificate for any other purpose, in the light of Ext.P16.
6. Now the question to be decided is whether the name of a person entered in a marriage register prepared as per “Rules 2008” can be changed subsequently. Rule 13 of the “Rules 2008” reads like this:
“Rule - 13. Correction and cancellation of e
The court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to amend marriage certificates despite procedural restrictions in specific cases for justice.
The court affirmed the right to change one's religion and name in official records under Rule 3(1) of KER 1959, supported by constitutional protections.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the names in the marriage certificate should match the names in the passport, and the absence of a specific provision under the Tamil Nadu Reg....
The main legal point established is that the names in the marriage certificate should match the names in the passport, and the court has the authority to direct the amendment of the certificate based....
Legal provisions dictate that corrections to birth certificates require evidence of error; disputes regarding paternity must be adjudicated rather than amended administratively, but courts can interv....
Correction of entry in Register of Births – Registrar should be convinced that grounds mentioned in Section 15 of Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of Rules, 1999 are available.
The court clarified a legally wedded wife holds superior claim over marital status, emphasized by the requirement for authentic marriage documentation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
