ABDUL SAMAD V. T. Vs. VALANCHERY MUNICIPALITY
LAWS(KER)-2020-2-375
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on
February 19,2020
Abdul Samad V. T.
Appellant
VERSUS
Valanchery Municipality
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
POPPATLAL SHALL V. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. HRH PRINCE ERNEST AUGUSTUS OF HANOVER [REFERRED TO]
INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER V. JOINER [REFERRED TO]
LT.-COL. PRITHI PAL SINGH BEDI V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. BASTOW [REFERRED TO]
CIT V. BADHRAJA AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KODIVEEDU CLETUS AND ANOTHER V. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES (COMMON),KOLLAM AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
JITHIN VARGHESE PRAKASH V. REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGE,PIRAVAM MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION,KERALA V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VISITOR AMU V. K.S.MISRA [REFERRED TO]
NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION V. NOIDA [REFERRED TO]
LILY THOMAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
POPPATLAL SHAH PARTNER OF MESSRS INDO MALAYAN TRADING CO THE UNION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RANANJAYA SINGH VS. BAIJNATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARIPRASAD SHIVSHANKER SHUKIA AND ANOTHOR BARSI LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED VS. A D DIVELKAR:K N JOGLEKAR [REFERRED TO]
KANAI LAL SUR VS. PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. VIJAY ANAND MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL PLAINTIFF THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF MADHYA PRADESH THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ASSAM THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ORISSA THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR T VS. UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFE [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM KISHORI DEVI VS. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SWANTRAJ VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P VS. MANGAL SEN SHYAM LAL BHAGWAN INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS VS. T V SUNDRAM IYENGAR PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SANKALGHAND HIMATLAL SHETH [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED CHANDIGARH MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED VS. SURESH CHAND:N K SAXENA [REFERRED TO]
JAGIR SINGH VS. RANBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KM SONIA BHATIA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. LABOUR COURT MADRAS:CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT [REFERRED TO]
NYADAR SINGH M J NINAMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DEOKI NANDAN AGGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
NELSON MOTIS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
OSWAL AGRO MILLS LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
DADI JAGANNADHAM VS. JAMMULU RAMULU [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
UNIQUE BUTYLE TUBE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN VS. SITA RAM AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. CIPLA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PONDICHERRY VS. ACER INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. GOVIND SINGH [REFERRED TO]
NATHI DEVI VS. RADHA DEVI GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
VEMAREDDY KUMARASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
A N ROY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS. SURESH SHARMA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SINGH VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. SURESH [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT URJA VIKASH NIGAM LTD VS. ESSAR POWER LTD [REFERRED TO]
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR VS. DAYANAND [REFERRED TO]
ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL PATTI VS. RAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JEYARAM EDUCATION TRUST VS. A G SYED MOHIDEEN [REFERRED TO]
SHAHABUDDIN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SATHEEDEVI VS. PRASANNA [REFERRED TO]
SANT LAL GUPTA VS. MODERN CO OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]
DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT LTD VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. AJIT KUMAR IDDYA [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA H KHURANA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
ADAMJI LOOKMANJI AND CO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
NAMAMAL VS. RADHEY SHYAM [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATTAN VS. PARMA NAND [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S. Manikumar, C. J. -
(1.)Challenging the judgment made in W.P(C). No.33608 of 2019 dated 23.1.2020, instant appeal is filed.
(2.)Facts in brief are as follows:
Appellant's son Mr. Niyas married 3rd respondent (Khairunnisa. P) and marriage was registered as per Kerala Registration of Marriage Rules on 16.6.2014. Niyas and the third respondent, for various reasons decided to separate and mutually agreed for pronouncing Talaq. They entered into an agreement on 23.5.2018, accepting Talaq. 3rd respondent is now married another person. As Niyas he is working abroad, appellant preferred Ext.P3 application dated 29.10.2019 before the concerned authorities for changing 3rd respondent's name as Niyas's wife, from visa, passport etc. Registrar of Birth, Death and Common Marriage, Valanchery Municipality (2nd respondent) has rejected the said application vide Ext.P4 notice stating that no court decree granting divorce has been submitted by the applicant and the parties to the marriage has not made any application for recording divorce. Hence writ petition was filed.
(3.)Writ court, after considering the rival submissions, observed thus:
"In pursuance to the notice issued by this Court, the learned Counsel for the Municipality expressed doubt over the maintainability on this writ petition on the premise that, the request for alteration or cancellation of entry in the files of the Registrar has been submitted by the father of the husband, Abdul Samad. By virtue of Section 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, parties referred to therein are husband and wife in the case of alteration of entries in the files of the Registrar. Section 13 read thus:
"Correction and cancellation of entries:(1) If the Local Registrar is satisfied either suo motu or on an application by the parties, that any entry in the Register of Marriages (Common is erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudeulently or improperly made, he shall subject to conditions in sub-rule (2) make suitable corrections including cancellation of registration, noting the evidence for such corrections in the margin of the Register of Marriages (Common), without any alteration of the original entry and shall sign the marginal entry with the date of correction or cancellation and shall forward the particulars of the corrections to the Registrar General concerned.
(2) All corrections in material particulars like name, age date etc. and cancellation shall be done only with the sanction of the Registrar General concerned. Provided that no such correction or cancellation shall be made without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.
(3) On getting sanction under sub-rule (2) the Local Registrar shall effect the correction or cancellation, as the case may be, in the Register of Marriages (Common)
(4) An amount of rupees one hundred shall be charged as fee for making corrections in the Register of Marriages (Common) other than clerical mistakes."
(5) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this Rule, intimation thereof shall be sent to the parties to the marriage and the Local Registrar shall make a report giving necessary details to the Registrar General concerned."
On going through the above provisions, I am also of the view that reference are to the parties and not to any third persons. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted that the parties belonged to Muslim Community and the marriage has already been dissolved, and the only requirement is alteration of entries in the file of the Registrar. I am of the view that the afore-mentioned request cannot be considered, as the party should be either the husband or the 3rd respondent, wife. The reason that the husband is abroad will not preclude the 3rd respondent in making an application for alteration of entries in the files of the Registrar.
The writ petition, with the aforesaid observation, is disposed of."
(2.)Facts in brief are as follows:
Appellant's son Mr. Niyas married 3rd respondent (Khairunnisa. P) and marriage was registered as per Kerala Registration of Marriage Rules on 16.6.2014. Niyas and the third respondent, for various reasons decided to separate and mutually agreed for pronouncing Talaq. They entered into an agreement on 23.5.2018, accepting Talaq. 3rd respondent is now married another person. As Niyas he is working abroad, appellant preferred Ext.P3 application dated 29.10.2019 before the concerned authorities for changing 3rd respondent's name as Niyas's wife, from visa, passport etc. Registrar of Birth, Death and Common Marriage, Valanchery Municipality (2nd respondent) has rejected the said application vide Ext.P4 notice stating that no court decree granting divorce has been submitted by the applicant and the parties to the marriage has not made any application for recording divorce. Hence writ petition was filed.
(3.)Writ court, after considering the rival submissions, observed thus:
"In pursuance to the notice issued by this Court, the learned Counsel for the Municipality expressed doubt over the maintainability on this writ petition on the premise that, the request for alteration or cancellation of entry in the files of the Registrar has been submitted by the father of the husband, Abdul Samad. By virtue of Section 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, parties referred to therein are husband and wife in the case of alteration of entries in the files of the Registrar. Section 13 read thus:
"Correction and cancellation of entries:(1) If the Local Registrar is satisfied either suo motu or on an application by the parties, that any entry in the Register of Marriages (Common is erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudeulently or improperly made, he shall subject to conditions in sub-rule (2) make suitable corrections including cancellation of registration, noting the evidence for such corrections in the margin of the Register of Marriages (Common), without any alteration of the original entry and shall sign the marginal entry with the date of correction or cancellation and shall forward the particulars of the corrections to the Registrar General concerned.
(2) All corrections in material particulars like name, age date etc. and cancellation shall be done only with the sanction of the Registrar General concerned. Provided that no such correction or cancellation shall be made without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.
(3) On getting sanction under sub-rule (2) the Local Registrar shall effect the correction or cancellation, as the case may be, in the Register of Marriages (Common)
(4) An amount of rupees one hundred shall be charged as fee for making corrections in the Register of Marriages (Common) other than clerical mistakes."
(5) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this Rule, intimation thereof shall be sent to the parties to the marriage and the Local Registrar shall make a report giving necessary details to the Registrar General concerned."
On going through the above provisions, I am also of the view that reference are to the parties and not to any third persons. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted that the parties belonged to Muslim Community and the marriage has already been dissolved, and the only requirement is alteration of entries in the file of the Registrar. I am of the view that the afore-mentioned request cannot be considered, as the party should be either the husband or the 3rd respondent, wife. The reason that the husband is abroad will not preclude the 3rd respondent in making an application for alteration of entries in the files of the Registrar.
The writ petition, with the aforesaid observation, is disposed of."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.