[Kerala Marriage Registration Rules] Only Husband Or Wife Can Seek Correction Of Entries In Register Of Marriages, Not Any Third Party: High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that authorities can entertain an application under Rule 13 of Kerala Registration of Marriages Rules 2008 for correction or cancellation of entries in the Register of Marriages (Common) only at the instance of the parties to the marriage. 

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that a third person who is not a party to the marriage cannot file an application for correction or cancellation of entries in the Register of Marriages (Common).

From a plain reading of Rule 13 of Rule 2008, it clear that the 'application of the parties' referred to in Rule 13(1) means the parties to the marriage. Parties to the marriage means the spouses, that is husband and wife. A third person who is not a party to the marriage cannot file an application for correction or cancellation of entries.

The Court further observed that the validity of the marriage cannot be decided by the Registrar by invoking the powers under Rule 13 and it can be decided only by a competent court.

The 1st petitioner got married in 2009 as per the religious rites and ceremonies under the Muslim Act and the marriage was registered under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. 

It was submitted before the Court that the father of the 1st petitioner (4th respondent) was unhappy with the marriage and filed an application before the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common) (3rd respondent) seeking the cancellation of the marriage registration certificate alleging that the marriage was not solemnized as per the Muslim law. Though the complaint was rejected, on an appeal, the Registrar General of Marriages (Common) passed an order allowing the complaint and cancelling the marriage registration. Subsequently, the petitioners were directed to surrender the marriage certificate. Aggrieved by this, Writ Petition was preferred. 

The Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the father of the first petitioner cannot be treated as 'parties to the marriage' as stated in Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008 and therefore respondents 1 and 2 erred in entertaining the complaint. The Counsel further contended that respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the marriage and that the validity of a marriage can be decided only by a Civil Court.

Government Pleader, however, supported the impugned order and contended that there was no need for interference. 

The Court after considering the contentions raised by both the Counsels and perusing Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008 observed that according to the Rule, the Local Registrar can either suo motu or, on the application by the parties, entertain an application for correction and cancellation of entries in the Register of Marriages (Common).

The Court pointed out that from a plain reading of Rule 13 of Rule 2008, it is clear that the 'application of the parties' referred to in Rule 13(1) means the parties to the marriage. Parties to the marriage mean the spouses, that is husband and wife and a  third person who is not a party to the marriage cannot file an application for correction or cancellation of entries. 

Therefore, in my opinion, an application for cancellation of the entry in the Register of Marriages (Common) cannot be entertained by respondents 1 to 3 at the instance of a third person, the Court observed. 

The Court observed that even though the 4th respondent is the father of the 1st petitioner, he is not a party to the marriage and under such circumstances, the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 at the instance of the 4th respondent are unsustainable.

The Court relying on the Kerala High Court decision in Lakshmi S.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors, further observed that the validity of the marriage cannot be decided by the Registrar by invoking the powers under Rule 13 and it can be decided only by a competent court. 

The Court thereby quashed the impugned orders and allowed the Writ Petition. 

Case Title: Anvar Sadath Ibrahimkutty and Anr. v. The Chief Registrar General of Marriage and Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 637

Click Here To Read/Download The Order