Registration of marriage agreements without proper solemnization of marriage and compliance with the relevant laws does not confer legal status to the parties.

D. MURUGESAN, J.

By the common order in the above two habeas corpus petitions, dated 2.9.2008, we have directed as follows.

"The petitioner by name M. Raju, S/o. Murugan of Manikkam Nagar, Kumara Puram Thoppu, Akastiswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District has approached this Court with Habeas Corpus Petition No. 643 of 2008 seeking for a direction to the second respondent Sub-Inspector Police, Anju Kirammam Police Station, Kanyakumari District to produce the body of the detenu namely "Jeba Jenitha."

2. In support of the petition, it is alleged that he and the detenu were fallen in love with each other for the past one year and after a clear understanding, they decided to marry. They appeared before the Parasala Sub-Registrar Office at Kerala and registered the marriage on 14.8.2008 and lived as husband and wife.

3. While they were living in Kerala, the detenu wife of the petitioner wanted to go back to her parents house to get consent for the marriage. Accordingly, she went to her parents house on 20.8.2008 and thereafter, she was not allowed to join with the petitioner. As she was illegally confined by the third respondent, he gave a complaint on 23.8.2008 to the second respondent and though it was received on 24.8.2008, no action was taken. Hence, he is constrained to approach this Court by way of Habeas Corpus Petition No. 643 of 2008.

4. When this petition came up for hearing on 29.8.2008, it has been brought to our notice that similar petition has been filed by another petitioner by name Jagadeesh Chandra Bose in Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P. No. 639 of 2008.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we doubted as to under which provisions of law, these agreements were being registered? Accordingly, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District to enquire and submit a report as to details of the marriage agreements that were registered in the said Registrar Office. Accordingly, a report dated 1.9.2008 is filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, wherein he had replied as follows:

"As per Kerala Registration Rules, the Document No. 707 of 2008 has been registered in this Office and the executants of this agreement doesn't get the status of married couple by the above said deed. The agreement has registered with the consent of the concerned parties. They have produced sufficient stamp and fees for the registration.

The detenu cancelled the above noted Marriage Document No. 707 of 2008 dated 14.8.2008 vide Marriage Cancellation Document No. 760/-8 dated 26.8.2008 of Sub-Registrar Office, Parasala, in which she has specifically stated that she never lived with the petitioner as wife."

6. However, the Superintendent of Police had not furnished the details of such marriage agreements said to have been registered in the said Sub-Registrar's Office.

7. On the above factual background, we heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2.

8. As far as Habeas Corpus No. 643 of 2008 is concerned, the petitioner claims that he has married the detenu and they lived as husband and wife and there was co-habitation. Hence, the learned counsel had submitted that the detenu should be secured and send along with the petitioner. However, we are not inclined to pass such an order on the facts of this case.

9. First of all, even as per the communication of the Sub-Registrar, Parasala dated 14.8.2008, it is seen that the agreement does not give any marital status in law to both the petitioner and detenu. Mere registration of marriage as has been done in this case cannot give any legal sanctity to the alleged marriage. The petitioner cannot claim the custody of the detenu on the ground that she is his wife. Further, the marriage certificate on which the petitioner had placed heavy reliance had been cancelled by the subsequent document dated 26.8.2008 registered in the same Office. In these circumstances, the Habeas Corpus Petition