The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by two individuals seeking the cancellation of their marriage certificate registered under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, on the ground that their inter-religious union was never validly solemnised. The Court held that the Local Registrar had no authority to cancel the registration in the absence of a finding that it was “erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made.”
The petitioners, who had cohabited briefly in November 2014, registered their marriage under the 2008 Rules via Ext. P1, purportedly to avoid legal and societal consequences. However, they have lived separately for the past decade. The first petitioner is a Muslim and the second a Hindu. Since the marriage was not solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the petitioners contended that no valid marriage had taken place. A joint application was submitted to the Local Registrar (4th respondent) for cancellation of the certificate, which was declined by communication dated 06.01.2025 (Ext. P3).
Petitioners argued that their registration was invalid as the marriage was never solemnised under any recognised legal process, particularly the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They maintained that Ext. P1 created a misleading impression of a legally valid marriage and requested cancellation under Rule 13 of the 2008 Rules.
The 3rd respondent countered that the registration was effected based on the documents submitted by the petitioners themselves, including Annexure R3(a) memorandum and Annexure R3(c) declaration by a local ward member. It was further contended that the Registrar’s action was lawful as the petitioners and their witnesses had testified that the marriage had been solemnised on 19.10.2014.
Justice C.S. Dias observed that Rule 13 permits correction or cancellation only when the entry is “erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made.” The Registrar's satisfaction must be based on objective evidence, and the provision mandates the sanction of the Registrar General for any such action.
The Court noted, “The Registrar is not empowered to conduct a comprehensive enquiry regarding the validity of the marriage or the competence of the parties to get married at the time of considering the memorandum.” Citing Pranav A.M. v. Secretary, Engandiyur Grama Panchayat (2018), it reaffirmed that the Registrar is only required to be “prima facie satisfied that the marriage was solemnised as per the personal law of the parties.”
The judgment further remarked, “Having produced documents to the above effect and voluntarily testifying that the marriage was solemnised, the petitioners are estopped from reprobating that there is no valid marriage.”
The Court found no fault in the Registrar's rejection of the petitioners' cancellation request, holding that Ext. P3 did not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality. It emphasized that questions regarding the validity of a marriage must be decided by a competent civil court, not through administrative proceedings under the 2008 Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. “It is clarified that this judgment shall not prejudice the right of the petitioners to approach a court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration regarding their marital status,” the Court concluded.
Case Title: XYZ and Anr. Vs. The State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No.: WP (c) No. 4751 of 2025
Coram: Justice C.S. Dias
Advocate for Petitioner: Advocates Cibi Thomas, Swarna Thomas, and Anusree K.
Advocate for Respondent: Advocates Sri. R. Surendran and Sr. GP. Vidya Kuriakose
Read Judgment @ Lateslaws.com
Picture Source :
