Registrar Cannot Cancel Marriage Merely on Parties' Change of Stand | Kerala HC Says Disputed Marital Status Must Be Decided by Civil Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias held that a Local Registrar, under Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, does not have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a marriage or adjudicate questions of marital status. The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the registration of a marriage between two individuals of different faiths and clarified that their remedy lies before a competent civil court. The impugned communication issued by the Registrar rejecting the petitioners' application for cancellation of the certificate was upheld.
The petitioners, a Muslim man and a Hindu woman, cohabited for a brief period in November 2014. To avoid potential social or legal consequences, they registered their marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. A marriage certificate was issued on 11.11.2014, recording the solemnisation of their marriage on 19.10.2014.
Soon after, the relationship between the petitioners deteriorated, and they had been living separately for the following decade. Citing the absence of a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the differing religious affiliations of the parties, the petitioners jointly sought cancellation of the marriage certificate from the 4th respondent, the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common). Their application was rejected through a communication dated 06.01.2025, which formed the subject of challenge in the writ petition.
The petitioners argued that the registration was improper and created a misleading impression of a valid marriage, which was never solemnised according to the applicable personal laws. They submitted that the Local Registrar had powers under Rule 13 of the Rules to cancel the certificate if the entry was erroneous or improper.
On the other hand, the 3rd and 4th respondents contended that the marriage was registered based on the documents provided at the time, including a memorandum dated 19.10.2014, a declaration from a member of the Local Self Government Institution dated 24.10.2014, and the statements of both petitioners and their witnesses confirming that the marriage took place. They argued that no evidence had been produced to establish that the registration was either improper or fraudulent as required under Rule 13 for cancellation.
The Court noted that the Registrar's role, under the Rules, is limited to verifying whether the marriage was prima facie solemnised based on the declarations made by the parties and their supporting documents. The Registrar is not empowered to determine the legality or religious validity of the marriage. Further, the petitioners had voluntarily signed and submitted the necessary documents at the time of registration and declared the solemnisation of the marriage.
The petitioners had produced Exhibit P2, their joint application dated 16.12.2024, requesting cancellation, and Exhibit P3, the communication from the 4th respondent rejecting the application. The registration had been conducted after verifying Annexure R3(a) (memorandum), Annexure R3(c) (declaration by a Ward Member), and oral testimonies of the petitioners and their witnesses during the inquiry.
The petitioners did not submit any record or material evidence indicating that the registration was fraudulent or improper. The 4th respondent had relied solely on their prior declarations and supporting documentation while issuing the marriage certificate.
As the requirements for invoking Rule 13 were not met, the respondents took the position that there was no error or illegality in refusing the request for cancellation.
Justice C.S. Dias recorded the following judicial observations in support of the Court’s conclusion: “There is no dispute that the petitioners had jointly submitted Ann.R3 (a) memorandum affirming that their marriage was solemnised on 19.10.2014 at the 2nd petitioner’s residence.”
A member of the Local Self Government Institution issued a certificate confirming that they had personally witnessed the solemnisation of the petitioners’ marriage. On the date of registration, both petitioners, along with their witnesses, gave statements affirming that the marriage had been solemnised on 19.10.2014. Relying on these documents and testimonies, the 4th respondent proceeded to register the marriage and issued the corresponding certificate.
Subsequently, the petitioners argued that since they belonged to different religious communities and had not formalised their union under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, their marriage lacked legal validity. On this basis, they sought cancellation of the marriage certificate under Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008.
Under Rule 13, a Registrar may cancel an entry in the Register if it is found to be erroneous in form or substance, or if it was entered fraudulently or improperly. However, the process under Rule 11 of the same Rules is intended to be summary in nature. The Registrar’s role does not extend to conducting a full enquiry into the validity of the marriage or evaluating the legal competence of the parties to marry at the time the memorandum is submitted.
As long as the Registrar is objectively satisfied that a marriage has been solemnised, he is authorised to register it. This principle is consistent with the decision in Pranav A.M. & another v. Secretary, Engandiyur Grama Panchayat, Thrissur and another, where the Court held that the Registrar is only required to be prima facie satisfied that the marriage was solemnised in accordance with the personal laws of the parties. Upon such declaration, registration must follow, without delving into the legality of the marriage.
In the present case, the petitioners had, of their own accord, submitted a memorandum and a supporting statement from an LSGI member, attesting to the solemnisation of the marriage on 19.10.2014. During the Registrar’s inquiry, both the petitioners and their witnesses clearly stated that the marriage had been performed according to customary rites at the residence of the second petitioner.
Given that the petitioners had themselves provided the documents and given oral confirmation of the marriage, they are now estopped from denying its existence or validity. The Registrar has no authority under Rule 13 to adjudicate such disputed questions of fact.
Questions about the validity of the marriage and the marital status of the petitioners fall within the jurisdiction of a competent civil court. Upon review of all facts and circumstances, the Court found no procedural impropriety or legal infirmity in the impugned communication.
In its final order, the Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and was therefore subject to dismissal.
However, it clarified that the judgment would not prevent the petitioners from seeking a declaration on their marital status before a court of competent jurisdiction.
With this observation, the writ petition was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Cibi Thomas, Smt. Swarna Thomas, Smt. Anusree K., Advocates
For the Respondents: Sri. R. Surendran, Advocate; Sr. GP Smt. Vidya Kuriakose
Case Title: Hussain & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:40760
Case Number: WP(C) No. 4751 of 2025
Bench: Justice C.S. Dias
[Read/Download order]
