Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the marriage registration authorities to add an additional entry in the marriage register recording a spouse’s new name after conversion and to issue a fresh marriage certificate reflecting that added name. The petition was filed by a wife in an inter-religious marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, who later adopted Islam and changed her name through a gazette notification, but whose marriage certificate continued to carry her earlier name, affecting documents required for a family visa to join her husband abroad. The Court ordered the Local Registrar and the Panchayat Secretary concerned to incorporate the entry and issue the updated certificate within one month.

Also Read: Single FIR Permissible In Large-Scale Cheating Conspiracy Cases; Multiple Complaints Can Be Treated As Statements: Supreme Court

The dispute arose when the petitioner sought correction of her name in the marriage certificate, which continued to record her pre-change name. The application was made to the local marriage registrar for correction of the certificate. The request was declined on the ground that major changes in a marriage certificate are impermissible under Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008, as clarified by a Government communication.

Aggrieved by the refusal, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking appropriate relief. The respondents relied on the statutory scheme under the Rules of 2008 and the Government clarification to justify their inability to effect changes in the marriage certificate. The petitioner relied on the Gazette notification and updated identity documents to support her claim.

The Court examined the scope of Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008, and recorded that “major changes to an entry already made in a marriage register are not permitted”. It observed that under the Rule, corrections are confined to cases where “any entry in the Register of Marriages (Common) is erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made”.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s request did not arise from any error at the time of registration and stated that “this is a major change in the name, which is admittedly not due to anything entered erroneously in form or substance”. It further recorded that “such major corrections in the marriage register cannot be carried out in the light of the specific bar in the rule”.

While acknowledging the statutory limitation, the Court considered whether extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be exercised. The Court stated that “any citizen of this country may adopt or follow another religion because our Constitution permits it” and that such choice was not in dispute.

The Court also recorded its concern regarding the absence of the petitioner’s husband from the proceedings, stating, “I doubt the bona fides of the husband in the peculiar facts and circumstances in this case”. It took note of the affidavit filed by the petitioner’s parents and observed that “they stated that their daughter changed her name … of her own free will, and that the parents have no objection”.

Referring to an earlier judgment, the Court extracted passages recognising that an additional entry reflecting a changed name could be incorporated without effacing the original entry. The Court concluded that “this Court can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to make necessary changes in the marriage certificate”, having regard to the facts recorded in the judgment.

Also Read: Victim’s Appeal Against Accused’s Acquittal Can Be Summarily Dismissed If Victim Shows No Prima Facie Arguable Case; Kerala High Court

The Court recorded that “this Writ Petition (C) is allowed”. The respondents are directed to incorporate an additional entry in the relevant page of the marriage register by adding the name of the petitioner as ‘Aayisha Muhsin’”. Thereafter the 2nd respondent will issue a marriage certificate to the petitioner with the new added name of the petitioner”. This exercise shall be completed “as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. S. Vinod Bhat, Kum. Anagha Lakshmy Raman, Smt. V. Namitha, Smt. Gitanjali Sadan Pillai

For the Respondents: Sri. R. Rajpradeep, Smt. Prasudha S., Smt. Sreedevi S., Sri. P. Jeril Babu, Government Pleader Sri. Riyal Devassy

Case Title: Aayisha Muhsin v. Principal Secretary & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:639
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 38145 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan