(2012) 274 KLR 307 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/11TH ASWINA 1934` WP(C).No. 21580 of 2012 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- JIJOMON PULLANKUNNEL JOHN S/O HOHN, PULLANKUNNEL HOUSE, KATTAMPACK KOTTAYAM 686612 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. NEEZHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE OF THE NEEZHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT NEEZHOOR P.O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686612 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY/ LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGE, NEEZHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE OF THE NEEZHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT NEEZHOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686612 3. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RR-R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA VINOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE Scl. K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J. --------------------------------------------- WP(C).No.21580 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2012 Head Note:- Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common), Rules, 2008 - Rule 13 - Correction and cancellation of entries - Where the Local Registrar is satisfied that any entry in the Register of Marriages is 'erroneous in form or in substance' or 'has been fraudulently or improperly made', he can makes suitable corrections therein, which may include the cancellation of the Registration. Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common), Rules, 2008 - Rule 13 - Correction and cancellation of entries - The corrections are to be made in the margin of the Register without any alteration in the original entry and the correction made in the margin is to be signed by the authority concerned, by affixing the date of correction also. Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common), Rules, 2008 - Rule 13 - Correction and cancellation of entries - Passport is an authentic record regarding the name and other personal particulars of an individual. Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common), Rules, 2008 - Rule 13 - Correction and cancellation of entries - Whether the correction sought for by the petitioner is liable to be rejected for the reason that a criminal case is pending against him? Held:- The pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner is admittedly on the allegation that he had fabricated a false Marriage Certificate. The entries in the Marriage Register are necessary to prove that the entries in the Marriage Certificate produced by him differs from the authentic entries in the Marriage Register. For the purpose of proving the above, the corrections sought for by the petitioner would not be an obstacle. For the reasons already noted above, the correction is, according to the relevant Rule to be made only in the margin of the Register. Therefore, it is held that the pendency of the criminal case is not an impediment in permitting the correction that is sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P5. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the second respondent rejecting an application submitted by the petitioner for correction of his name in the Marriage Register maintained under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common), Rules, 2008 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Common Rules' for short). According to the petitioner, his name has been entered as 'Jijomon P.J' in the Marriage Register, which he wants to be corrected as 'Jijomon Pullankunnel John'. He also wants similar corrections to make in respect of the entries regarding the names of his father, father-in- law and mother-in-law also. For the above purpose, he submitted Ext.P5 application. Since no orders were passed on Ext.P5, he had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.15321 of 2012. As per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent to pass final orders on the petitioner's application. Thereupon, the second respondent has passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the petitioner's application. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P7 order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The reason stated in Ext.P7 for the rejection is that the corrections sought for were not permissible in view of the fact that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, in which, the Marriage Register and the relevant entry containing the particulars of himself and his marriage has been produced as material objects. The Register has thereafter been entrusted to the second respondent for custody on the specific condition that the same would be produced as and when directed by the Court. In view of the above, according to the second respondent, no corrections can be made in the said Marriage Register until the criminal case is finally disposed of. The counsel for the petitioner Sri. Subhash Chand submits that the criminal case was charged in view of the fact that a Marriage Certificate which he believed to be a properly corrected Certificate had been produced by him for the purpose of going abroad but, the same was found to be a fabricated document on verification. Therefore, a crime has been registered against him. The petitioner contends that he is innocent and that the mischief was committed by a relative of his, whom he had entrusted the task of getting the corrections made. The pendency of the said criminal case, according to the counsel, need not detain the authority from making the corrections, which are to be done only in the Register of the Marriages, as evident from Rule 13 of the Common Rules. For the above reasons, the counsel seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Ext.P7. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. According to the respondents, Ext.P7 has been issued for valid reasons and there are no grounds justifying an interference with the same. Since the petitioner has been made an accused in a criminal case relating to the fabrication of a false Marriage Certificate, it is contended that he is not entitled to get the relevant entries corrected, before the criminal case is finally disposed of. 4. I have heard Advocate S.Subhash Chand who appears for the petitioner as well as Sri. Sandesh Raja who appears for respondents 1 and 2. I have also perused the records as well as the relevant provisions of law. 5. The facts in this case are not disputed. Even according to the petitioner, he is an accused in a criminal case where the allegation is that he had created a false and fabricated Marriage Certificate. True, the case of the petitioner is that he is not guilty of the offence alleged. The fact remains that the Marriage Register and the relevant entry containing the particulars regarding his marriage had been taken into custody as material objects in the criminal case and have been handed over to the second respondent for custody, by the Police. It is a specific condition of such custody that the same would be produced as and when directed by the Court. The First Information Report of the said case is Ext.P4. 6. The case of the second respondent is that the correction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted for the reason that the said criminal case is pending against him. Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit in which, the second respondent has set out his contentions is reproduced hereunder for convenience of reference. "7. It is submitted that the Rule 13(1) of the Registration of Marriage (common) Rules 2008 (Kerala) further requires the local Registrar to be satisfied that errors have been made in the entries in the marriage certificate and since criminal case is pending against the petitioner accusing him of committing forgery of the said marriage certificate itself, the respondents reasonably was under apprehension regarding the authenticity of the claim of the petitioner regarding the mistaken particulars and the particulars that he claimed were the correct ones especially in view of the fact that the particulars in the marriage certificate tally with the memorandum submitted by the petitioner but do not tally with the passports produced by him which were the only documents produced for supporting his claim and the respondent was not satisfied regarding the errors in the marriage certificate on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner as required under Rule 13(1) of the Registration of Marriage (common) Rules 2008 (Kerala). In the above circumstances the respondent were fully justified in taking due care after knowing about the criminal case filed against him with regards to a forged Marriage Certificate itself and to be on the safer side by rejecting the Ext.P5 application by passing Ext.P7 order. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to get corrected marriage certificate under Rule 13 of the Registration of Marriage (common) Rules 2008 (Kerala) as a matter of right without satisfying the requirements prescribed under it as prayed in the Writ Petition." 7. According to the second respondent he has rejected Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner "to be on the safer side". It is also contended by the second respondent that authentic records for effecting such corrections are the SSLC Book and Birth Certificate and not the Passport. 8. Rule 13 of the Common Rules confers power on the second respondent to make corrections in the Register of Marriages. 9. Rule 13 reads as follows:- "13. Correction and cancellation of entries.- (1) If the Local Registrar is satisfied either suo motu or on application by the parties, that any entry in the Register of Marriages (Common) is erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently 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." 10. A perusal of the above provision shows that where the Local Registrar is satisfied that any entry in the Register of Marriages is 'erroneous in form or in substance' or 'has been fraudulently or improperly made', he can makes suitable corrections therein, which may include the cancellation of the Registration. The corrections are to be made by noting the evidence relied upon for making such corrections, in the margin of the Register of Marriages. The corrections are therefore to be made in the margin of the Register without any alteration in the original entry and the correction made in the margin is to be signed by the authority concerned, by affixing the date of correction also. It is clear from the procedure contemplated that a correction made in the manner prescribed under Rule 13 would not result in any insertion, interpolation or correction of the original entry that is available in the Marriage Register. Therefore, by effecting the correction that is sought for by the petitioner as per Ext.P5, no change in the original entries available in the Marriage Register would be effected. For the above reason, the contention that the grant of permission to make the correction sought for by the petitioner would result in effecting an interpolation with respect to a material object in a criminal case, cannot be accepted. 11. The fact that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner is not a ground for rejecting the application Ext.P5 submitted by the petitioner. The second respondent has only to be satisfied that the corrections are being effected on the basis of an authentic record. The petitioner wants the corrections to be effected for the purpose of making the entries in the Marriage Register in conformity with the entries in his Passport. It cannot be disputed that the Passport is an authentic document. The same is issued only after conducting a proper Police verification as contemplated by the Passport Act. On the contrary, the issue of a Birth Certificate or SSLC book do not involve any such verification. For the above reasons, it has to be held that the passport is an authentic record of identity of a person. In view of the above, there is no justification for rejecting the petitioner's application for correction, so as to make the entries in Marriage Register in conformity with the entries in the Passport. I also notice that Form No.I that is issued under Rule 9(1), which is to be submitted for the registration of a marriage mentions the Passport as sufficient proof of age, date of birth and other details of an individual. For the above reason, the objection of the second respondent that the passport is not an authentic record regarding the name and other personal particulars of an individual cannot be sustained. 12. The next question is whether the correction sought for by the petitioner is liable to be rejected for the reason that a criminal case is pending against him. The pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner is admittedly on the allegation that he had fabricated a false Marriage Certificate. The entries in the Marriage Register are necessary to prove that the entries in the Marriage Certificate produced by him differs from the authentic entries in the Marriage Register. For the purpose of proving the above, the corrections sought for by the petitioner would not be an obstacle. For the reasons already noted above, the correction is, according to the relevant Rule to be made only in the margin of the Register. Therefore, it is held that the pendency of the criminal case is not an impediment in permitting the correction that is sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P5. 13. It is pointed out by the counsel for the second respondent that on the basis of the corrected Marriage Certificate, the petitioner would flee the country and would not be available for the trial that has to commence later. The correction of the Marriage Register of the petitioner does not permit him to leave the country. The petitioner is enlarged on bail and he is bound by the conditions of the bail that has been granted. It is made clear that the petitioner shall obtain the permission of the Court before which the criminal case is pending, before proceeding abroad and shall abide by the conditions stipulated by the said Court. 14. For the above reasons, this writ petition is ordered as follows:- (i) The second respondent shall pass necessary orders making the corrections in the Marriage Register sought for in Ext.P5 and shall forward the same to the third respondent for necessary sanction within a period of one week of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii) The third respondent shall consider and pass necessary orders in the matter within a period of one week of receipt of the corrected Register from the second respondent. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj |
