IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16428 of 2010(C) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THULASI SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O.SUBRAMANIAN, MANICHITRA ARCHADE, VELIYANNOOR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR.M.A.SHIHAB, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY MR.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION FOR R1-R2 MR.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL, ADVOCATE, FOR R1-R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16428 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner whose husband is no more is seeking for a direction to issue marriage certificate by the respondents after verifying all the relevant documents required under Rule 9 of the Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was married to one late Sri.Subramanian who had earlier married Dr.Surojini who died on 09.07.2008. In the said wedlock, there were no issues. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the death certificate. 3. The marriage between the petitioner and Sri.Subramanian took place on 17.01.2010 in the Paramekkavu Bagavathi temple and Exhibit P3 is the copy of the wedding card. Exhibit P4 is the copy of the photographs taken at the time of their marriage. It is pointed out that their marriage stands W.P.(C) No.16428/2010 2 registered in the office records of the Temple. The Temple authority issued a certificate as per Exhibit P6 based on the particulars contained in the register. It is mentioned in the writ petition that they approached the Local Registrar of Marriages of the Thrissur Corporation on 17.02.2010 for registering the marriage under the Registration of Marriages (Common) Rule, 2008 in the form prescribed. Exhibit P7 is said to be the copy of the application submitted. In the face page of Exhibit P7, the token number is mentioned as 12. It appears that the petitioner's husband, due to his illness, died on 22.02.2010. Therefore, both of them could not appear on the date fixed for appearance by the Marriage Registrar. 4. The petitioner also submits that as per the amendment brought to the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, Exhibit P11, even after the death of either the husband or the wife if a memorandum with the signature of two witnesses to the marriage together with sufficient documents to prove the marriage is filed by the person alive, the marriage has to be registered. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.16428/2010 3 Exhibit P12 complaint before the Corporation in the matter and Exhibit P12(a) is the receipt evidencing the receipt of the same, and in the absence of any response from the part of the respondents, this writ petition has been filed. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is pointed out that Exhibit P7 memorandum for registration of marriage was produced before the 2nd respondent on 17.02.2010. To avoid crowding of the applicants coming for registration of marriages, token numbers are given to the applicants on the basis of priority of their submission of the application for registration by entering the same in the face page of the application for registration and the applicants would be directed to report for registration as per their turn on the basis of priority of their token numbers. Accordingly, token number 12 was assigned to them. But, when their turn came, they did not report either on 17.02.2010 or on subsequent dates and therefore, the marriage was not registered. It is submitted that the application was never re-submitted for enabling the respondent to take action for registration of marriage. Therefore, the contention W.P.(C) No.16428/2010 4 taken by the Corporation is that there is no valid application for registration of marriage. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the death of the petitioner's husband, in terms of the amended rules, the petitioner has forwarded Exhibit P13 along with memorandum for registration of marriage in form No.1 by speed post. It is submitted that the said form was forwarded along with all the required documents. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that if the said application has been received in the office of the Corporation, then the Registrar will take appropriate action as enjoined by law to complete the formalities required, if the application satisfies all the conditions and required materials are made available by the petitioner. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P13 application and the enclosures therein, if the same has been received, and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If no such application has W.P.(C) No.16428/2010 5 been received by the 2nd respondent, then intimation to that effect will also be given by the 2nd respondent for enabling the petitioner to submit another application as per the Rules. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp