IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6266 of 2004(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.V.SIVADASAN, CHARUTHA, KAVUMBHAGAM P.O THALASSERRY. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE LOCAL REGISTRAR, (SECRETARY), THALASSERRY MUNICIPALITY. ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12.1.2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 NOTICE DATED 24.1.2004 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 6266 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging notice issued by the respondent alleging mis-declaration in an application for registration of a marriage. Strangely respondent has not initiated any action against the applicants who applied for registration of marriage. All what is stated is that there is mis-declaration in the application inasmuch as declaration was that marriage was celebrated in the bride's house, whereas the actual ceremony was in Guruvayur Temple. Mis-declaration appears to have been given because registration has to be done with the Registrar within whose jurisdiction the marriage took place. It is not known whether marriage is registered or not. If registration is to be done by the Registrar within whose jurisdiction marriage was solemnised, it was open to the respondent to reject the application. In any case, since no action is proposed against the petitioner so far, who was only a witness, W.P.C. is closed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2