IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30929 of 2011(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MOHAMMED ALI, PARAKKALKOLLIYODAL, ADUKKATH P.O., KUTTIYADI VIA, MARUTHONKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE MARUTHONKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY SECRETARY, MARUTHONKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.MARUTHONKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, MARUTHONKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.MARUTHONKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.30929/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SECRETARY MAHAL COMMITTEE MASJIDURAHMA JUMA ATH PALLI DATED 14/10/2011. P2 COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CHENGAROTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH SHOWING THE DEATH OF BASHEER.V.P. DATED 3/1/2007. P3 COPY OF THE FORM NO.1 AS PER RULE 9 (1) OF THE COMMON RULES. P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A16751/11 OF MARUTHONKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 27/10/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 30929 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 communication of the 2nd respondent dated 27/10/2011 and for a direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to register the marriage of the petitioner along with Nadeera. V.K. as per the application dated 24/10/2011 and to issue marriage certificate within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for registration of marriage. Petitioner married Ramla in the year 1995. It is said that Ramla was totally disabled to do the marital obligations. Considering the request from her to undergo a second marriage and with her full consent, the petitioner married Nadeera V.K. on 17/12/2010. The said Nadeera V.K. is a widow and her husband Basheer V.P. died on 29/12/2006. Ext.P2 is the copy of the death certificate certifying the death of Basheer V.P. the former husband of -2- W.P.(C).No.30929/2011 Nadeera. Petitioner is the holder of Indian passport and is working in Dubai as a driver. Petitioner submits that he wanted to take the 2nd wife Nadeera along with him to Abudabi and for the purpose of travel documents, the marriage with the petitioner has to be registered under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriage (common) Rules, 2008. Therefore, a joint application for registration of their marriage was submitted to the respondents. In the application for registration of the marriage the petitioner stated that he has one spouse living and the 2nd wife Nadeera mentioned that he has no spouse living. Ext.P3 is the copy of form No.1 as per Rule 9(1) of the Rules. By Ext.P4 communication dated 27/10/2011 the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the application cannot be considered stating that he has a spouse living. 3. It is pointed out that the personal law of the petitioner permits the 2nd marriage and therefore the reason for not entertaining the application is incorrect. Petitioner submits that as per personal law, the petitioner can marry more than one wife. -3- W.P.(C).No.30929/2011 Petitioner has to go abroad and if the marriage with the 2nd respondent is not registered, it is not possible for arrangement of travel documents and to take her along with him. 4. This Court in the decision reported in Abedulla and others v. Noorjahan Beegam and another (1987 KLT 787) held that the personal law of the person concerned does not prohibit a second marriage during the life time of first spouse, no offence of bigamy is committed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders afresh on the application for registration of marriage of the petitioner without reference to the reasons stated in Ext.P4, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ext.P4 order is quashed. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.