Asma P.B. vs The Registrar General of Marriages (Common), The Registrar Of Marriages, Sree Maheswara Temple and Kiranraj A.V.

K. Surendra Mohan, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

i) to call for the records relating to Exts. P1 and P2 and to issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the registration of the marriage evidenced by Ext. P1 is illegal, opposed to law and also is caused without jurisdiction and authority and hence to cancel the same;

In the alternate

ii) to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to cancel the marriage registered as per Ext. P1 by exercising the power under Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules;

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent not to conduct any marriage not permitted under the Hindu Marriages Act and also to declare that the marriage conducted by them on 3.7.2013 evidenced by Ext. P1 is illegal and opposed to law;

iv) Any other appropriate, writ, order or direction also may be granted to meet out justice under the circumstances of the above case.

According to the petitioner, she was trapped into going through the motions of a marriage by the fourth respondent who belongs to a different community. Thereafter, the said marriage has also been registered under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Common Rules'' for short). It is contended that the petitioner had no intention of getting married to the fourth respondent. The alleged marriage that is stated to have been solemnised in a Hindu temple is invalid and is of no consequence, since the parties belong to different religions. The authority that has registered Ext. P1 had no jurisdiction to register the marriage even assuming that it had taken place at the Sree Maheswara Temple, Koorkenchery, which is a different place, outside the jurisdiction of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P2, a petition under Rule 13 of the Common Rules to cancel the registration. No orders have been passed thereon till date. Adv. K.P. Vijayan appears for the second respondent. The matter comes up before me for admission.

The case of the petitioner is that there was no valid marriage as contemplated by law in the present case, since the petitioner as well as the third respondent belong two different religions. Therefore, a marriage in a Hindu temple between a Hindu and a Muslim, is not recognised as a valid marriage by any law. The petitioner was tricked into going through the ceremonies of solemnisation of the marriage by the third respondent, it is contended. Such performances are of no legal consequence. However, in the nature of the contentions put forward, it is clear that the issues cannot be resolved without a proper adjudication of the factual aspects, which cannot be undertaken under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Since Ext. P2 is pending before the second respondent and the said authority is empowered to determine all the above contentions, it is sufficient that the said authority is directed to consider Ext. P2 in accordance with law and to pass necessary orders in the matter, without delay.

This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Ext. P2 petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 13 of the Common Rules, after conducting all necessary enquiries and to pass appropriate orders in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.