W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

2

brought to India. After completing her plus 2 course, she has joined a degree course, B.A. Animation, in the School of Media and Designing, Puthupadi, which is functioning under the Eldo Mar Baselious College, Kothamangalam. She was attending to her studies residing in a Home Stay conducted by one James Villayil, Vulavoor Junction, Puthupadi. During vacations, the detenue used to be either in the house of the petitioner or at her mother's house.

3. According to the petitioner, she got information in the above circumstances on 11.8.2016 from the owner of the Home Stay at Puthupady that the detenue had left the place without their permission. Both the petitioner and her younger son tried to contact her over mobile phone. In the evening when they contacted her, she told the petitioner's younger son that she was on her way to Chengannur to her mother's paternal home. However, she did not reach there. In the above circumstances, she complained to the police. Crime No. 1875 of 2016 was registered. Thereafter she received

4

W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

3

information that she was abducted by the 5^threspondent who is working as a taxi driver at Thiruvananthapuram. The investigation conducted by the Police revealed that she was at a house in Valiyamala along with the 5^threspondent. It is alleged that though the petitioner's family members had gone to the house of the 5^threspondent, he did not permit them to see the detenue. Therefore, contending that the 5^th respondent had no right to detain the detenue, this writ petition is filed.

4. On 16.8.2016, we had passed an order directing production of the detenue before us today. Accordingly, the detenue has appeared before us along with the 5^threspondent. We have interacted with the detenue. She has handed over to us in Court, a Marriage Certificate issued by the SNDP Yogam, Nedumangad Union, Pazhakutty P.O., Nedumangad, SNDP Yogam Branch No. 1386-Chandramangalam. The Certificate is dated 13.8.2016. It is certified by the Secretary of the SNDP Yogam that the marriage of the 5^threspondent to the detenue

5

W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

4

was solemnized under the auspices of the Branch on 12.8.2016 between about 9.30 a.m. and 10 a.m. at the SNDP Sakha office, Anad. It is also stated that the marriage is registered in their Marriage Register Book No. 1. The detenue has also produced before us the acknowledgment cum receipt for money dated 12.8.2016 issued under Section 51 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 evidencing the fact that the petitioner and the 5^threspondent have given notice of their intention to get married. Therefore, we are informed that the parties would be in a position to register their marriage on any day after 12.9.2016. The detenue as well as the 5^threspondent also informs us that they have been living together as husband and wife ever since their marriage on 12.8.2016 believing that the said marriage was legal.

5. We have permitted the petitioner to interact with the detenue in Court. After such interaction, the detenue maintains that she has got married to the 5^threspondent and that she wants to live her life with him. However, we notice

6

W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

5

that no legally valid marriage has taken place between the detenue and the 5^threspondent.

6. It is true that the SNDP Yogam, Nedumangad Union has issued a Certificate certifying that the detenue and the 5^threspondent had got married on 12.8.2016. But, the said Certificate is misleading and has no validity in the eye of law. This is for the reason that the 5^threspondent is a Hindu while the detenue is a Christian. As per the Certificate, the marriage is alleged to have been conducted at the Sakha Office. How a marriage could be conducted at the Sakha Office of the SNDP Yogam is also not clear. We do not know on what basis such a certificate has been issued by the SNDP Yogam certifying that the parties had got legally married. We do not find from the Certificate that even a traditional marriage has been conducted. What appears from the same is only that the 5^threspondent and the detenue had got married at the SNDP Sakha Office. No law, religious custom or practice, to our knowledge, permits such a marriage.

7

W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

6

7. It is a matter of concern for us that an organization like the SNDP Yogam, which is expected to conduct its activities in a legal and responsible manner, has issued such a misleading certificate as in this case. The detenue and the 5^threspondent have been living together as husband and wife under the mistaken belief that they had got legally married and that they were husband and wife. The SNDP Yogam ought to have known that a marriage to be legally valid should either be conducted in accordance with the traditional and religious rites of a community or should be in accordance with the provisions of the law relating to marriages. When the parties belong to two different and distinct religions, a legally valid marriage could be conducted only by having the same registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The practice of issuing such misleading Certificates by responsible Organizations like the SNDP Yogam is, to say the least, unbecoming of their social status. We are constrained to make the above observation because of the fact

8

W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

7

that, we have noticed in another case, that was disposed of by us, after having a proper marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act conducted, that the parties had earlier got married as per some ceremony conducted at the Sivagiri Mutt. On the basis of a Certificate issued by the said institution, the marriage was also registered under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 by the Local Authority concerned. Such activities create confusion in the minds of the common man, who places implicit trust in such Organizations and the functionaries of the Local Authorities. It is for such functionaries to exercise due diligence and care while issuing Certificates of like nature so as to ensure that the common man is not misled. We have come to know about the present Certificate only because this Writ Petition has come up before this Court. There could be other instances where the parties continue to live as husband and wife under the mistaken belief that their relationship was legal and valid. The progeny of such marriages would

9

W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

8

however be illegitimate. Problems would arise regarding succession where one or the other of the parties die or where the parties separate because of disputes between them. The situation that may arise could give rise to various other complications also. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the local authorities as well as such social Organizations exercise restraint and issue Certificates of like nature only after ensuring that a legally valid marriage has taken place.

8. In the present case, as already noticed above, since no valid marriage has taken place, it is necessary that the parties register their marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without further delay. As noticed above, they have already given notice of their intention to get married. They shall therefore have their marriage solemnized after the expiry of the statutory waiting period of one month and shall produce the Certificate of their marriage before us.

10

W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

9

This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

i) The first respondent is directed to issue necessary guidelines to the Local Authorities entrusted with the duty of registering marriages under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, instructing them not to register marriages without ensuring that the traditional or religious marriage alleged to have been conducted was proper and valid in law. In other words, for accepting a traditional marriage as valid, it is necessary that the parties should belong to the same religion and that they are persons entitled to get married in accordance with the rites of their religion. It is also necessary to ensure that the marriage was conducted in accordance with the traditional religious rites and rituals associated with the performance of marriages and at places where such ceremonies are permitted by the customs and

11

W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

10

practices of such religion. A certificate issued by the competent religious functionary certifying to the above facts could be accepted as proof of such a traditional marriage.

ii) Appropriate orders shall be issued regulating the manner in which Certificates are to be issued by the Organizations like the SNDP Yogam, Sivagiri Mutt and other similar Organizations certifying that marriages between persons belonging to two different religions were conducted under the auspices of such Organizations.

iii) The detenue as well as the 5^threspondent shall have their marriage registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and shall produce a copy of such certificate of Registration before us on 22.9.2016. They shall be present in Court on the said date. In the meantime, since the detenue and the 5^th respondent have been living together as husband and

12

W.P.(Crl.)294/2016.

11

wife on the strength of the Marriage Certificate issued by the SNDP Yogam, they are permitted to reside together.

Post on 22.9.2016 for production of the Marriage Certificate.

K. SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGE

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

sb

13