AI Insights
The case involves Princy, the petitioner, who sought to register her marriage with Joshy Thomas, which was initially denied by the Registrar General of Marriages due to a name discrepancy between her marriage certificate and school records. The petitioner argued that her name 'Princy' was consistently used in all official documents except for her school records, where it was listed as 'Mary.M.A.'. The court examined various documents, including birth, baptism, and marriage certificates, and a Gazette notification that legally recognized her name change. The court found that the Registrar's rejection was overly technical and not in line with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 694517 (HC-KERALA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
23-07-2018
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 23731 of 2018 PETITIONER : PRINCY, W/O. JOSHY THOMAS, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, P.O. KUZHIKATTUSSERY, KALLEMUMKARA VIA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SRI.DENNY DEVASSY RESPONDENTS : 1. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF MARRIAGES (COMMON)/ THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003. 2. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES(COMMON), SECRETARY, KADUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. KADUKUTTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680309. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SMT.LAYA SIMON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: EL WP(C).No. 23731 of 2018 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRIEST WITH REGISTER NO.53/88 DATED 20.1.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BAPTISM CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PARISH PRIEST.ST. THOMAS FORANE CHURCH, AMBAZHAKAD DATED 6.7.2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE DATED 22.1.2018 MADE BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 6.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 5.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD BEARING NO.KL/10062/030277 EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PANCARD BEARING NO. BQAPP6754M ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PASSPORT BEARING NO. R1452546. EXHIBIT P6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAR CARD NO.945651000529. EXHIBIT P6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE NO.45/7406/2009 DATED 20.7.2015 ISSUED BY ASST.LA. CHALAKUDY. EXHIBIT P6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD NO.1875114505 ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER REGISTER NO.179959. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.10.2006. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND SRI.JOSHY THOMAS NO.E.7770691. WP(C).No. 23731 of 2018 (N) EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 9.7.2018. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE EL 2.8.2018 (CR) ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 06.06.2018 rendered by the 1st respondent- Registrar General of Marriages (Common) whereby the said official has refused to grant permission to the 2nd respondent- Local Registrar to register the marriage of the petitioner, on the ground that, as the name of the petitioner as shown in the application is in variance with her name at the time of her marriage. 2. The prayers in this writ petition (civil) are as follows:- “i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or any other appropriate writ order or direction to set aside Ext P4 order. ii) Call for the records relating to the Ext P4 order from the 1st respondent and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the same. iii) Direct the respondents to consider the documents produced by the petitioner and issue marriage certificate to the petitioner in the name of Princy within a time frame. W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..2.. iv) Issue direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to give an opportunity to adduce evidence if further evidence is required. v) Issue such other appropriate reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.” 3. Heard Sri.K.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Sheejo Chacko, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that her name has been duly entered as “Princy” in the birth and baptism certificate maintained by the parish church concerned as evident from Ext.P2 and that her name has also been duly shown as “Princy” in Ext.P6 Election Commission of India Identity Card, Ext.P6(a) Pancard issued by the Income Tax Department of the Government of India, Ext.P6(b) passport, Ext.P6(c) Aadhar card, Ext.P6(d) driving licence, Ext.P6(e) ration card, etc. That however her parents had entered her name in the school records as “Mary.M.A.” which got recorded also in Ext.P7 SSLC Book. Ext.P8 dated 10.10.2006 is the Gazette of Kerala Publication dated 10.10.2006 in regard to the W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..3.. Notification regarding her change of name, which reads as follows:- “It is hereby notified for the information of all authorities concerned and the public that -I, Mary, M.A., Kannampuzha House, P.O. Kuzhikkattussery, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District, holder of S.S.L.C Book No.B 247389 with Register No.179959 of March 1981 issued by Department of Education, Government of Kerala and Pre-degree Examination Certificate No.24505 with Register No.35331 of April 1983 issued by University of Calicut dated on 20th July 1983 and B.Com Second Year Examination Certificate No.30628 with Register No.13317 of April 1985 issued by University of Calicut dated on 5th December 1985 and also known as Princy in the Election Identity Card No.KL/10/062/030277 issued by Election Commission of India dated 23-10-1998 and also known as Rosa (Mary) in the Marriage Certificate dated 20.11.1988 issued from St.Thomas Forana Church Ambazhakkad is one and the same person. Hereafter, I will be known by the name Princy Joshy only. This change will come into effect in all records related to me.” 5. The petitioner's name has also been entered as 'Princy' in the passport of her husband as per Ext.P9. That her husband is permanently settled in Spain and steps have been taken for her permanent settlement in Spain, as her husband is suffering from serious cardiac ailments. The petitioner could understand that the Governmental Authorities of that foreign country would insist for a W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..4.. marriage certificate in order to evidence the factum of marriage of the petitioner with her husband. Thereupon the petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 application dated 22.1.2018 as a memorandum to register the said marriage which was preferred before the 2nd respondent-Local Registrar of the Grama Panchayat concerned, under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. The 2nd respondent had taken the view that since the registration of the petitioner's marriage took place on 20.11.1988, the delayed registration of the said marriage requires the permission of the 1st respondent Registrar General in view of the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the above said Rules. Accordingly the 2nd respondent had sought for permission from the 1st respondent which now has been refused as per the impugned Ext.P4 order on the ground that the petitioner's name (Princy) as entered in Ext.P3 application is in variance with her name at the time of her marriage, viz., (Mary.M.A.) as shown in Ext.P7 S.S.L.C. Book. It is this order at Ext.P4 dated 06.06.2018 that is under challenge in this writ petition. Ext.P4 order dated 06.06.2018 reads as follows:- W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..5.. \"വവിഷയയം :കകാടുകുറവി ഗകാമപഞകായതത്ത് - വവിവകാഹ രജവിസസ്ട്രേഷൻ അനുമതവിക്കുള്ള അസപക്ഷ നവിരസവിച്ചതത്ത് - സയംബന്ധച്ചത്ത്. സൂചന : 1. തകാങ്കളുടടെ 05/06/2018 - ടലെ ടമയവിൽ സസന്ദേശയം. 2. 2008 ടലെ സകരള വവിവകാഹങ്ങൾ രജവിസ്റ്റർ (ടപകാത) ടചയ്യൽ ചടയം 9(1),11 * * * സമൽ വവിഷയതവിസലെക്കുയം സൂചനയവിസലെക്കുയം ശ്രദ്ധ ക്ഷണവിക്കുന. 2008 ടലെ സകരള വവിവകാഹങ്ങൾ രജവിസ്ട്രേകാർ (ടപകാത) ടചയ്യൽ ചടയം 9(1) പ്രകകാരയം നവിഷ്കർഷവിച്ചവിട്ടുള്ള വവിവകാഹ ടമസമകാറകാണ്ടതവിൽ (ഫകാറയം 1) വവിവകാഹതവിൽ ഏർടപ്പെട കക്ഷവികളുടടെ വവിശദവവിവരങ്ങൾ, വവിവകാഹ തതീയതവിയവിൽ ഉള്ള വവിവരങ്ങളകാണത്ത് സരഖടപ്പെടുസതണ്ടതത്ത്. ചടയം 11 പ്രകകാരയം തസദ്ദേശ രജവിസ്ട്രേകാർ വവിവകാഹ ടമസമകാറകാണ്ടതവിടലെ (ഫകാറയം 1) ഉൾക്കുറവിപ്പുകളുടടെ കൃതത്യതയയം പൂർണ്ണതയയം പരവിസശകാധവിസക്കേണ്ടതകാണത്ത് എനയം വത്യക്തമകാക്കേവിയവിട്ടുണ്ടത്ത്. തകാങ്കൾ ഓൺലലെൻ ആയവി സമർമവിപ്പെവിച്ച അസപക്ഷസയകാടടെകാപ്പെമുള്ള വവിവകാഹ ടമസമകാറകാണ്ടതവിൽ (ഫകാറയം 1) ഭകാരത്യയടടെ പൂർണ്ണമകായ സപരത്ത് എന്ന സകകാളതവിൽ വവിവകാഹ തതീയ്യതവിക്കേത്ത് സശഷയം ഗസറത്ത് സനകാടവിഫവിസക്കേഷൻ പ്രകകാരയം മകാറയം വരുതവിയ സപരകാണത്ത് സമർപ്പെവിച്ചവിട്ടുള്ളതത്ത്. ആയതവിനകാലെകാണത്ത് അസപക്ഷ നവിരസവിച്ചവിട്ടുള്ളതത്ത്. അസപക്ഷ നവിരസവിച്ചതവിസന്മേലുള്ള തടെർനടെപടെവികൾ ആയതവിടന്റെ അടെവിസകാനതവിൽ സസതീകരവിസക്കേണ്ടതകാണത്ത്. അനുമതവിക്കേകായവി ഈ ഓഫതീസവിസലെക്കേത്ത് സമർപ്പെവിക്കുന്ന അസപക്ഷകൾ ചടപ്രകകാരമകാണത്ത് എന്നത്ത് തസദ്ദേശ രജവിസ്ട്രേകാർ പരവിസശകാധവിച്ചത്ത് ഉറപ്പെത്ത് വരുസതണ്ടതകാടണന നവിർസദ്ദേശവിക്കുന. വവിശസസ്തതസയകാടടെ വവിവകാഹ (ടപകാത) രജവിസ്ട്രേകാർ ജനറൽ& പഞകായതത്ത് ടഡെപപ്യൂടവി ഡെയറക്ടർ തൃശ്ശൂർ\" 6. As per the case of the petitioner her marriage was solemnized on 20.11.1988. Further the case of the petitioner is W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..6.. that, though her name was originally entered as 'Princy' in Ext.P2 birth and baptism certificate maintained at the local Parish concerned, her name was shown as 'Mary.M.A.' in Ext.P7 S.S.L.C.Book. Thereafter by Ext.P8 Gazette Notification, declaration regarding her change of name as 'Princy' was duly made in terms of the Rules issued by the State Government. Her name has been shown as Princy in all the other records and certificates except in Ext.P7 S.S.L.C.Book. The petitioner's parents belong to Mala and the President of the Mala Grama Panchayat has issued Ext.P10 testimonial/certificate dated 09.07.2018 certifying that the petitioner is the daughter of Manjooran Antony and that he personally knows the family of the petitioner and that in the locality and in her house she has been known by the name 'Princy' though her name has been shown as 'Mary.M.A.' in the school records and that 'Princy' and 'Mary.M.A.' are one and the same person. So going by the case set up by the petitioner is not as if the petitioner's name 'Princy' is altogether a new name which is distinct and separate from her original name at the time of her marriage. It appears that the petitioner's name was entered in the W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..7.. birth and baptism register of the Church as 'Princy' and it is thereafter that her name has been shown as 'Mary.M.A.' in the school records which led to the entry in Ext.P7 S.S.L.C. Book. In all the other documents produced by the petitioner, her name has been consistently shown as 'Princy'. More crucially her name has been entered as Princy in Ext.P6(b) passport issued to her as well as in Ext.P9 passport of her husband. It appears that the petitioner's marriage was duly solemnized in the St.Thomas Forane Church, Ambazakkad, Thrissur, which is under the Catholic Diocese of Irinjalakuda and her name in Ext.P1 marriage certificate issued by the said Diocese has also been duly shown as Princy. So at the time of the solemnization of the petitioner's marriage in the St.Thomas Forane Church, Ambazakkad, her name was Princy as per Ext.P2 birth and baptism certificate of that Church. Therefore it is not as if the petitioner's name as shown in the Church records prior to her marriage has been changed at the time of her marriage. True that her name was entered as “Mary.M.A.” in Ext.P7 S.S.L.C.Book issued in the year 1980. So at best it should therefore be held from the above said documents that the W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..8.. petitioner was known by the name Princy as per the Church records as well as in the social and family circles but that her name was shown as Mary.M.A. in the school records and she was known by both the names. So it is not a case as if the petitioner's name Princy is totally new and different one from the one that was in vogue, prior to her marriage. It is to be noted that even for change of names as entered in the statutory birth register maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths as per the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act and the Rules framed thereunder, this Court has held a series of judgments as in Mathew Alex v. Kanjirappally Grama Panchayath [2018 (3) KLT 126], etc., that the said statutory Registrar has the power to effect change of names, if the applicant can show that there are bonafides in their plea and that such correction for the name of a person as entered in the birth register could be made not only in respect of the scenarios covered by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder but even in cases scenarios which are not contemplated in the statutory provisions and that in cases where the scenario is not covered by the provisions of the Act and W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..9.. the Rules, then the Statutory Registrar should exercise his powers after conducting enquiry on the bonafides of the plea and he has to abide by the principles of justice, equity and good conscience in such cases. In the instant case the petitioner is not seeking her change of name as entered in the marriage register maintained by the respondents, as her marriage has not so far been registered as per the Rules. Therefore in the light of these aspects, the present objection raised by the 1st respondent in Ext.P4 rejection order is rather hyper-technical and would be in violation of the rights of the petitioner. 7. Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 has come into force on 29.2.2008. Rule 9(2) thereof stipulates that the Memorandum for Registration of Marriages solemnized before the commencement of the said Rules is to be submitted on or before 31st December, 2010. Further Rule 10 of the said Rules stipulates that in case of the marriages solemnized before the commencement of the said Rules in respect of which no memorandum for registration was filed on or before 31st December, 2010, shall subject to Rule 9(3), be registered by the Local W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..10.. Registrar with the permission of the Registrar General concerned and on payment of a fine of Rs.250/-. That in such cases also the memorandum shall be filed together with declaration from Gazetted Officers/Member of Parliament/Member of Legislative Assembly/Member of Local Self Government Institutions in Form No.2 appended to these Rules or with any other documents to prove solemnization of marriage to the satisfaction of the Registrar General concerned and the Registrar General may conduct, if necessary, enquiries through the Local Registrar or otherwise and give suitable directions to the Local Registrar regarding registration. The aforesaid Rule 10 reads as follows:- “10. Registration of marriages after one year.- Marriages solemnized after the commencement of these Rules in respect of which no memorandum for registration is filed within one year of its solemnization and marriages solemnized before the commencement of these Rules in respect of which no memorandum for registration was filed on or before 31st December 2010 shall, subject to sub- rule (3) of Rule 9, be registered, by the Local Registrar with the permission of the Registrar General concerned and on payment of a fine of rupees two hundred and fifty. In such cases also the memorandum shall be filed together with a declaration from a Gazetted Officer/Member of Parliament/ Member of Legislative Assembly/Member of Local Self Government Institutions in Form No.II appended to these Rules or with any other document to prove the solemnization W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..11.. of marriage to the satisfaction of the Registrar General concerned. The Registrar General concerned may conduct, if necessary enquiries, through the local Registrar or otherwise and give suitable direction to the Local Registrar regarding registration.” 8. It is submitted by the petitioner that Ext.P3 application dated 22.1.2018 has been signed by the petitioner as well as her husband and that her husband is now in Spain will report before the competent officer among the respondents, on a suitable day prior to the formal issuance of the marriage certificate so that both the spouses could sign the marriage register as per the Rules. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarala Baby v. State of Kerala & Others (2010 2 KHC 334 (DB)) that the insistence of the Registrar for the personal appearance of the couple to receive the memorandum in Form No.1 is illegal and contrary to the Scheme of the Rules and that in all cases that the memorandum in Form No.1 is not received on the ground that both the spouses are not present from the Local Registrar shall receive the same even if it is presented by a third party or sent through post and that the spouses need to appear before the Registrar concerned prior to the issuance of the certificate so that W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..12.. both could sign the marriage register as per the Rules. 9. In view of the above aspects, it is ordered that the impugned rejection order at Ext.P4 will stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the 1st respondent-Registrar General for consideration of the matter afresh. It is made clear that the 1st respondent cannot refuse to grant permission as per the Rules merely on the ground stated in the impugned Ext.P4 order which has now been set aside. It will be open to the 1st respondent to conduct an appropriate enquiry and find out whether “Princy” and “Mary.M.A.” are one and the same person. The above said documents referred to herein above should also be carefully perused and evaluated by the 1st respondent. The petitioner may also produce the original of Ext.P10 testimonial/certificate dated 9.7.2018 issued by the President of Mala Grama Panchayat. It will be open to the 1st respondent to ascertain from the author of Ext.P10 about the genuineness of the contents of Ext.P10 certificate. Thereafter it is for the 1st respondent-Registrar General to decide on the matter of grant of permission in terms of Rule 10 and may then remit the matter to the 2nd respondent-local W.P.(C)No.23731 of 2018 ..13.. Registrar to decide on the registration of the marriage of the petitioner and on the formal issuance of the marriage certificate, subject to the compliance of the conditions in the rules, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sarala Baby's case (supra). The entire formalities in this regard will be completed by the respondents within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner may produce certified copies of this judgment before the respondents for necessary information and further action. However it is made clear that the 2nd respondent may grant sufficient time to the petitioner’s husband, to come over from Spain, for signing the marriage register. With these observations and directions this writ petition (civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE skj "
Other Referred Cases
Mathew Alex v. Kanjirappally Grama Panchayath [2018 (3) KLT 126], Sarala Baby v. State of Kerala & Others (2010 2 KHC 334 (DB))
Laws Referred To
Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, Registration of Births and Deaths Act
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹1
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
Rectification Letter - Application for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of I.T. Act
Mehul₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026