IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20119 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KARTHIKA.R.P , KINARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, THOTTUMMMUGHAM P.O, SOUTH MAINAKAPPALLY,KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN, SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN, SRI.C.A.JAYARAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF MARRIAGES (COMMON)/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, AYANTHOLE, THRISSUR -680 001. 2. THE LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES (C0MMON)/SECRETARY, PTUHUCADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH THRISSUR -680 001. 3. SHRI DHARMADAS.S, NJRAKATTIL VADAKKETHIL, THOTTUMMUGHAM P.O, SOUTH MAINAKAPPALLY, KOLLAM- 683 105. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. HANIL KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20119/2011-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 16/07/2011. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 15/07/11. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20119 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent mislead her to sign certain documents before the 2nd respondent and subsequently only she came to know that what she signed was the marriage register. It is stated that on realization of the aforesaid alleged mistake, she made Ext.P2 application before the 2nd respondent invoking his power under Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules 2008. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P2 and therefore this writ petition is filed praying for a direction requiring the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2. 2. In a matter of this nature, it is entirely for the 2nd respondent to take a decision in the manner as laid down in the rules aforesaid. Therefore, having regard to the W.P.(C) No. 20119 OF 2011 :2 : pendency of Ext.P2, without expressing anything on the contentions raised by the petitioner, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 in accordance with law with notice to the 3rd respondent and if necessary with the approval of the first respondent. 3. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned authority for appropriate action. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge