IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7283 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIMON, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MURINGATH VARU, MURINGATH HOUSE, POOVATHUSSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL SRI.P.D.JOSHY MON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ANNAMANADA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 7283/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. P2. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT. P3. -DO- P4. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 7283 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's wife is living in Italy. The petitioner intends to join his wife at Italy. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P1 certificate of marriage. But there are differences in their names in the marriage certificate as compared with the names of the petitioner and his wife entered in their passports. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application before for the 2nd respondent for correction of the marriage certificate appropriately. The petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent refuses to accept the same on the ground that there is no provision for correcting the same. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or such other order or direction compelling the 2nd respondent to accept, consider and dispose of Exhibit P4 application within such time as this Hon'ble Court shall deem just.” 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that in the absence of any provision in the Special Marriage Act and Rules for making such correction, no such petition can be entertained since in the marriage certificate the names as shown in the application filed by the petitioner and his wife have been entered. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to w.p.c.7283/10 2 consider identical question in W.P.(C).No.25041/2008, in which, following the judgment dated 11.12.2009 was passed: “The marriage between Sri. Elanjikkal Poulose Jacob, the petitioner herein, and Smt. Tharakan Paul Dolly was solemnized on 4.5.1987 at Perpetual Lady of Mother Church. The petitioner is presently residing in Italy and is employed there. In his passport his name is shown as Elanjikkal Poulose Jacob. In the passport issued to his wife, her name is shown as Tharakan Paul Dolly. With a view to obtain a visa and take his wife abroad, the petitioner and his wife submitted an application to the first respondent to have their marriage registered under the Special Marriages Act 1954. The marriage was accordingly registered as on 12.6.2007. However, in the marriage certificate, the petitioner’s name was shown as Elanjikkal E.P.Jacob and that of his wife as Tharakan Dolly Jacob, daughter of Tharakan Pappu. This discrepancy in the name of the petitioner and his wife in the marriage certificate was sought to be corrected by moving the first respondent. The first respondent declined to make the necessary corrections. The petitioner contends that in view of the disparity in their names in the marriage certificate he is not in a position to take his wife abroad. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to effect the necessary corrections in the marriage certificate issued by him, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the entries in the marriage certificate were made based on the information furnished in the application and that in the application for registration of marriage, the names of the petitioner and his wife had been given as in Ext.P3 certificate. It is contended that registration was perfectly in order and that there is no mistake in the marriage certificate issued by him. He also contends that in the absence of any mistake on his part, he is not bound to correct the marriage certificate and issue a fresh marriage certificate. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. A similar issued was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.28200 of 2009 wherein this Court held that though the Marriage Officer cannot be found fault with for the entries in the marriage certificate, in the absence of any embargo in rectifying the mistake even if it was caused on account of the parties themselves, the error in the marriage certificate can be permitted to be corrected. This Court however directed that such correction shall be made in the event of the petitioner therein remitting the sum of Rs.1,500/- in the State Treasury and producing proof of such payment before the Marriage Officer. In the light of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28200 of 2009, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner remitting the sum of Rs.2,500/- in the Sub Treasury, Chalakkudy, under an appropriate head of account and w.p.c.7283/10 3 producing proof of such payment and surrendering the original of Ext.P3 marriage certificate, the first respondent shall issue revised marriage certificate containing the name of the petitioner and his wife as in their respective passports. In order to enable the first respondent to act as directed above, the petitioner shall also produce along with a certified copy of this judgment attested photostat copies of his passport and the passport of his wife. It is clarified that this direction is not to be treated as a general direction and that the Marriage Officer need not make such corrections unless ordered by this Court or any other competent civil court.” 5. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in that decision. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent that in the event the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.2500/- in the Sub Registry Office, Chalakkudy, under an appropriate head of account, producing proof of such payment and surrendering the original of Ext.P1 marriage certificate, the 2nd respondent shall issue revised marriage certificate containing the name of the petitioner and his wife as in their respective passports. In order to enable the 2nd respondent to act as directed above, the petitioner shall also produce along with a certified copy of this judgment attested photostat copies of his passport and the passport of his wife. It is clarified that this direction is not to be treated as a general direction and that the Marriage Officer need not make such corrections unless ordered by this Court or any other competent civil court. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.7283/10 4