Kerala High Court
Thomas Kutty Joseph vs Local Registrar Of Marriages on 10 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11652 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THOMAS KUTTY JOSEPH,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.T.T.JOSEPH, THYPARAMPIL HOUSE, KEEKOZHOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA, NOW RESIDING AT 58,
HAWKINS STREET, SHEPPARTON, VIC 3630, AUSTRALIA
REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, JOSE KOSHY, AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O.P.J.KOSHY, KUZHIPARAMBIL ARUPARYAYIL, AMICHAKARY PO,
CHATHENKERY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT KERALA.
2 BLOSUM THOMAS @ BLOSUM ABRAHAM,
D/O.MR. P.C. ABRAHAM, PARAKKULATHU, EDAMON, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, NOW RESIDING AT 58, HAWKINS STREET,
SHEPPARTON, VIC 3630, AUSTRALIA
REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, JOSE KOSHY, AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O.P.J.KOSHY, KUZHIPARAMBIL ARUPARYAYIL, AMICHAKARY PO,
CHATHENKERY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT KERALA.
BY ADVS.
JACOB P.ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX
MANU SANKAR P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES
(COMMON), CHERUKOLE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, (SECRETARY,
CHERUKOLE GRAMA PANCHAYAT) OFFICE OF CHERUKOLE GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, CHERUKOLE P.O.,KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA
PIN 689 614.
2 REGISTRAR GENERAL OF MARRIAGE (COMMON),
PATHANAMTHITTA (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
PATHANAMTHITTA) OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN 689 645
WP(C) NO. 11652 OF 2021 2
OTHER PRESENT:
GP-- PAUL ABRAHAM V . ADV MANILAL SUKUMARAN FOR
R1 .
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 11652 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of June 2021
This Writ Petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the
respondents to process Ext.P3 memorandum submitted by the
petitioners for registration of their marriage through video
conferencing.
2. The petitioners have averred in the writ petition
that their marriage was solemnised on 30.6.1997 as
evidenced by Ext.P1 Marriage Certificate. They have three
children born in their wedlock. The petitioners were employed
in the United Arab Emirates. In June 2018, the petitioners
migrated to Australia on a temporary visa. Unfortunately,
due to a change in the immigration rules of that country, they
are unable to get permanent residence. The Immigration
Authorities have insisted for a certificate of registration of
the marriage of the petitioners, to process their application
for permanent status. Ergo, the petitioners have submitted
Ext.P3 memorandum, through their power of attorney holder,
before the 1st respondent, seeking registration of their
marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages
(Common) Rules, 2008 (in short 'Rules'). They are unable
travel to India due to the travel restrictions imposed in
Australia because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners
have been informed by their power of attorney holder that the
1st respondent, as a condition precedent to process the
memorandum, is insisting that the petitioners have to
personally appear before him and subscribe their signatures
in the relevant registers. This Court in Mathew T.K. v.
Secretary, Registrar of Marriage (2020 (4) KHC 456)
and a plethora of precedents has held that the registration of
marriage can be conducted through video conferencing. The
petitioners are prepared to appear through video
conferencing and have authorised their power of attorney
holder to subscribe their signatures. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. Heard Sri.Jacob P Alex, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Sri. Manilal, the learned Standing counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government
Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the
first respondent has only a limited role in the matter, by just
transmitting the memorandum to the second respondent - the
competent authority - which he would do, if directed.
5. Human race is going through difficult times, due to
the pandemic, but life cannot be brought to a grinding halt in
this unprecedented era. We have to devise ways and means
to reconcile with these times and the law and its procedure by
adopting to innovative ways, including the use of technology
which is in consonance with law. The world over has
effectively used technology to march forward with life.
6. It is undisputed, that the petitioners are husband
and wife as evidenced by Ext.P1 and P2 certificates. They
have also executed Exts.P4 and P5 powers of attorney in
favour of their agent, who has submitted Ext.P3 memorandum
for registration of marriage. It is not practically possible for
the petitioners to travel all the way from Australia during this
turbulent period, to subscribe their signatures in the registers
of the respondents. Strict enforcement of the procedure
cannot be insisted upon in this extra-ordinary situation. In
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioners have to be permitted
to register their marriage through video conferencing and be
represented through their power of attorney and if needed
even subscribe their signatures on such applications and
other documents by using digital signature which would
fulfill the statutory requirements.
In the result, in exercise of the powers of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I dispose the
Writ Petition by issuing the following directions:
(i ) The 1st respondent shall
forthwith transmit Ext.P3 memorandum
to the 2nd respondent - the competent
authority - for registration of the
marriage of the petitioners.
(ii) The Power of Attorney holder
of the petitioners shall produce a copy
of Exts.P4 and P5 and file an
undertaking/affidavit before the 2nd
respondent stating that he is duly
authorised by the petitioners to sign in
the marriage register and all such
other applications and documents, for
and on behalf of the petitioners 1 and
2.
(iii) The 2nd respondent on receipt
of Ext.P3 memorandum shall permit the
power of attorney holder of the
petitioners to subscribe his signature,
for and on behalf of the petitioners, in
all the relevant registers, applications
and documents contemplated under the
rules.
(iv) The 2nd respondent shall, if
felt necessary, interact with the
petitioners through video conferencing,
on any suitable platform to be arranged
at the instance of the petitioners, and if
felt necessary obtain an undertaking
from the petitioners with their digital
signatures by e-mail or a physical copy
to be send by courier service to the 2 nd
respondent.
(v) On being convinced of the
identity of the petitioners and that they
have authorised their agent to act on
their behalf, the 2nd respondent shall
register the marriage of the petitioners
and, thereafter, issue the Marriage
Certificate in Form IV of the Rules, as
expeditiously as possible, to the Power
of Attorney holder of the petitioners.
(vi) The Power of Attorney holder
of the petitioners is permitted to
produce a copy of this judgment before
the respondents 1 and 2 for due
compliance.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
pm
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11652/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
DATED 30.6.1997 ISSUED BY CHURCH OF GOD
INDIA.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
15.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE CONSUL, INDIAN
CONSULATE AT MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM FOR
REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE IN FORM NO.1
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT.
Exhibit P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED
24.5.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF
CHERUKOLE GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED
30.4.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED
30.4.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN PRADEEP
KODIVEEDU CLETUS V. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF
MARRIAGE 2018 (1) KHC 280
