IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2442 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, AGED 43 YEARS, KOLLIYIL HOUSE, MANJALI, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN -683 520. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, V.I.P.ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, V.I.P. ROAD, KALOOR,KOCHI-17. 3. SEENATH PANDARAVALAPPIL, D/O.MOOSAN, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANDARAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PAZHANCHIRA POST, PAPPINASSERY WEST, KANNOOR DISTRICT, PIN -670 565. R1 & R2 BY SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, S.C, WAKF BOARD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.2442 OF 2011(E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is a marriage certificate issued by the first respondent to the effect that the petitioner's deceased brother Sri. Kunjumohamed Abdul Rasheed had married the 3rd respondent and that the said marriage was solemnized in accordance with the Islamic law of marriage and that the said marriage is valid. The contention raised is that the said certificate is not only factually erroneous but is also issued without proper authority of law. 2. The Wakf Board has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit what they have stated is that for employment and visa purposes, when application is made, it is their practice to issue certificates such as Ext.P5. In this case also, according to them, such a request was made. It is stated that the application was supported by Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) marriage certificates issued by the Pattalam Muslim Jama-ath Committee and an affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. It is based on the aforesaid documents that they have issued the said certificate. 3. The purpose of the petitioner for getting Ext.P5 WPC.No.2442 /2011 :2 : invalidated is apparently to resist the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent for the benefits that accrued consequent on the death of the petitioner's brother who is stated to be the husband of the 3rd respondent. In other words, if Ext.P5 is invalidated, the 3rd respondent will be deprived of the benefits, which she claims on he basis that she is the wife of the deceased. 4. The ground on which the petitioner claims that Ext.P5 is illegal is that there has not been any marriage between the petitioner's deceased brother and the 3rd respondent and the petitioner refers to various documents in support of this contention. In my view, if there has not been any marriage as stated for by the petitioner that is a disputed question of fact, which the petitioner will have to establish in appropriate proceeds by adducing evidence to support this contention. 5. Only if the petitioner succeeds in such a proceedings can the petitioner get Ext.P5 invalidated. In that view, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach appropriate forum and get this claim adjudicated. This cannot be in a writ petition filed before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/