Kerala High Court
Shahid P. vs State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.3890 OF 2021(I)
PETITIONERS:
1 SHAHID P., AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. HIDAYATHULLA, SHAHID MANZIL, ALATHIYOOR P. O.,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 102.
2 FAIZA N. A., AGED 28 YEARS
D/O. N. M. ABDULLA AND W/O. SHAHID P., NEDUMPURAKKAL
HOUSE, KATTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 702.
BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES (COMMON)
KATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 702.
R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI RAVI KRISHNAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.3890 OF 2021(I)
2
Sathish Ninan, J.
==============================
W.P.(C) No.3890 of 2021
==========================
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of
their application (Ext P5) seeking registration of their
marriage under the Kerala Registration of
Marriages(Common) Rules, 2008. The application is
rejected stating that dissolution of marriage by 'Talaq'
is prohibited under the Muslim Women(Protection of Rights
on Marriage) Act, 2019.
2. The second petitioner had earlier contracted a
marriage with another man which was dissolved by
pronouncement of three successive Talaq in an interval of
one month each. The same was in terms of Ext P3 agreement
between the parties. The said form of divorce is in
accordance with Islamic Law and is not prohibited. It is
the instant triple talaq which is bad in law. The second
respondent ought not have rejected the application of
registration of the marriage of the petitioner which was
held subsequent to the pronouncement of Talaq afore
referred to.
WP(C).No.3890 OF 2021(I)
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the second respondent to consider Ext P5
application afresh in accordance with law. The learned
standing counsel for the respondent points out that there
are certain defects in the application. Needless to say
that the petitioners shall rectify the same to enable
consideration of the application.
Sd/- Sathish Ninan, Judge
vdv
WP(C).No.3890 OF 2021(I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
NO.1066 DATED 01.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE
JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE, KATTOOR.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
MARRIAGE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
IN RESPECT OF THE MARRIAGE WITH 2ND
PETITIONER AND MIDHULAJ REGISTERED ON
25.02.2015.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
2ND PETITIONER AND MIDHULAJ DATED
20.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF 1ST
TALAQ LETTER DATED 26.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF 2ND
TALAQ LETTER DATED 26.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF 3RD
TALAQ LETTER DATED 26.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE
PETITIONERS DATED 01.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C3/442/2021
DATED 27.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
04.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE KATTOOR
MAHALLU JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE.
