IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20232 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.NOUSHAD ALI THACHAPARAMBAN, S/O.MOYIN KUTTY, THACHAPARAMBAN HOUSE, MUNDENGARA, EDAVANNA (P.O),MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. EDAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYTH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDAVANNA (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES(COMMON), EDAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYTH, EDAVANNA (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20232/2010-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF MRS.KOVALEVSKAYA EKATERINA. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM FOR REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE UNDER RULE 9 (1) OF THE KERALA REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE (COMMON) RULES, 2008, DTD. 23/06/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DTD. 19/08/99. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.20232/2010-D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is a native of Edavanna in Malappuram District. He is an Allopathic Physician by profession and he had undergone the course in M.B.B.S in Moscow. Therein, he fell in love with a Russian girl named Kovalevskaya Ekaterina who is also an Allopathic Physician. It is pointed out that they married on 16/08/1999 which was conducted in accordance with the Islamic custom from the Mundengara Juma Masjid in Edavanna. Two children have been born to them and Exts.P1 to P2 are the copies of the passports. 2. After the enactment of the Kerala Marriage Rules (Common) 2008, the petitioner submitted an application for registration as per Ext.P3 before the Registrar. It is accompanied by Ext.P4 marriage certificate. Aggrieved by the delay in the matter, this writ petition has been filed seeking for various reliefs. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out therein that the wife of the petitioner belonged to Christian community and she is a Russian citizen. Therefore, it is contended that marriage which was solemnised by Indian citizens alone can be W.P.(C). No.20232/2010 -:2:- registered under the Rules. It is also pointed out that the writ petition is too premature. The application was filed on 24/06/2010 through an agent which was verified on 25/06/2010 and on finding that the witnesses have not signed, this was informed to the petitioner. The application was represented on 01/07/2010. But, in the meanwhile, on 26/06/2010, this writ petition has been filed. It is also pointed out that the respondent has sought a clarification from the Deputy Director and reply is yet to be received. Further it is pointed out that the petitioner has not remitted registration fee, certificate fee etc. Parties should be present for signing the marriage register. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the wife of the petitioner, before the marriage, was not having any religion at all being a Russian National. It is submitted that she had been accepted by the Muslim community and, thereafter, the marriage was conducted. It is further pointed out by referring to the principles in Mohammedan law that actually there is no procedure for conversion. It is further pointed out that now that the marriage has been solemnised, the validity of the marriage cannot be a matter for the first respondent to consider. W.P.(C). No.20232/2010 -:3:- 5. The relevant Rules, namely, the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008 contain provisions for the registration of marriages. The application is filed, according to the petitioner, in terms of the above rules. Neither the Rules nor the provisions of any other Statue have been brought to my notice which prohibits a marriage between Indian National and a Foreign National. The marriage was solemnised within the State itself. Therefore, the objection that the wife of the petitioner is a Russian National and, therefore, it cannot be registered does not hold good. 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent then submitted that the first respondent will have to verify from the authorities of the Juma Masjid with regard to the details of the marriage etc. before registering the same. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has to cure certain defects in the application. Therefore, the defects, if any, in the application will be cured by the petitioner by paying registration fee or any other prescribed fee within a period of ten days. It is pointed out that the parties will have to be present before first respondent for subscribing their signatures. The said formality will also be undertaken. In the meanwhile, it is open to the first respondent to get the details of the W.P.(C). No.20232/2010 -:4:- marriage from the Mundengara Juma Masjid. Thereafter, the application will be disposed of in accordance with the rules. The first respondent will therefore issue appropriate communication to the petitioner with regard to the requirement to be present before him after conducting the enquiry into the matter. The application will thereafter be disposed of in terms of the Rules within a period of one month. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms