Partly allowed

Santhakumari v. Vs Inspector General of Registration

Kerala HC3 Feb 2020WP(C)/2011/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition seeking to set aside a divorce deed but directed respondents to consider the application for a relationship and legal heirship certificate, rejecting the divorce deed as a valid ground for refusal.

What did the court decide?

WP(C) No.2011 of 2020 dismissed; WP(C) No.2019 of 2020 allowed with direction to respondents to pass orders on application within one month.

Santhakumari v. Vs Inspector General of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 14TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.2011 OF 2020(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SANTHAKUMARI V. AGED 51 YEARS

¶8

W/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY SHANMUGAN CHETTIYAR, EDAVOOR KUNNATHU VEEDU, MANGATTUKADAVU, THIRUMALA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.RAMESH .P SMT.ANISHA M.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

¶12

2 DISTRICT REGISTRAR, NEAR CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION.P.O., KOLLAM-691002.

¶13

3 SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER, PARAVUR, KOLLAM-691334.

¶14

PRINCY XAVIER,GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).2019/2020(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).Nos.2011 & 2019 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶21

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 14TH MAGHA, 1941

¶22

WP(C).No.2019 OF 2020(B)

¶23

PETITIONERS:

¶24

1 SANTHAKUMARI V.

¶25

AGED 51 YEARS W/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY SHANMUGAN CHETTIYAR, EDAVOOR KUNNATHU VEEDU, MANGATTUKADAVU, THIRUMALA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006.

¶26

2 PRAVEENA

¶27

AGED 35 YEARS D/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY SHANMUGAN CHETTIYAR, EDAVOOR KUNNATHU VEEDU, MANGATTUKADAVU, THIRUMALA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006.

¶28

BY ADVS. SRI.RAMESH .P SMT.ANISHA M.

¶29

RESPONDENTS:

¶30

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶31

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

¶32

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION, ROAD, KOLLAM-691013.

¶33

4 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, EAST FORT, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶34

5 TAHSILDAR, TALUK KACHERY, KOLLAM-691001.

¶35

WP(C).Nos.2011 & 2019 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

6 VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUMALA, MANGATTU KADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006.

¶38

7 VILLAGE OFFICER, POOTHAKKULAM, PARAVUR-PARIPPALLY ROAD, KOLLAM-691334.

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).2011/2020(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

WP(C).Nos.2011 & 2019 OF 2020

¶41

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

[ WP(C).2011/2020, WP(C).2019/2020 ]

¶44

Dated this the 3rd day of February 2020

¶45

W.P(C) No.2011 of 2020 is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶46

“I) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction or to declare Exhibit P5 as null and void and to set aside the same.

¶47

ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to 1^st respondent to dispose the Exhibit P6 within one month.”

¶48

W.P(C) No.2019 of 2020 is filed seeking the following prayer:

¶49

“To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction or to the respondents 6 and 7 to issue the Relationship Certificate and the Legal Heir ship Certificate to the petitioners.”

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶51

The contention of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.2011 of 2020, is that Ext.P5 which is a document allegedly executed by the petitioner's late husband is stated to be as a deed for divorce and that the petitioner is not a signatory to the said deed. It is submitted that

¶52

WP(C).Nos.2011 & 2019 OF 2020

¶53

¶54

based on Ext.P5, which has no legal validity, the respondents are refusing to issue a Relationship Certificate to the petitioner.

¶55

The prayer in WP(C) No.2019 of 2020 is to consider Ext.P3 application and to issue a Relationship Certificate and Legal Heir ship Certificate to the petitioners. The 1^st petitioner contends that she is the legally wedded wife of late Krishnankutty and that no divorce, as known to law, has occurred between the 1^st petitioner and late Krishnankutty, before his death on 09.04.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner and her daughter are therefore entitled to a Relationship Certificate and Legal Heir ship Certificate as sought for in Ext.P3. It is stated that Ext.P5 document in WP(C) No.2011 of 2020 stands in the way of the respondents issuing the Legal Heir ship Certificate to the petitioner.

¶56

The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P3 application has been received and that appropriate steps will be taken thereon in accordance with law.

¶57

Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the prayer raised in WP(C) No.2011 of 2020 to set aside Ext.P5, cannot be entertained by this Court in these proceedings.

¶58

WP(C).Nos.2011 & 2019 OF 2020

¶59

¶60

Accordingly, WP(C) No.2011 of 2020 is dismissed leaving open the contentions of the parties.

¶61

However, there will be a direction to the respondents in WP(C) No.2019 of 2020 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application preferred by the petitioners in accordance with law. The execution of a deed for divorce cannot be a reason for the respondents to refuse the Relationship Certificate and the Legal Heir ship Certificate as sought for by them in the absence of dissolution of the marriage in a manner known to law. The petitioner further contends that Ext.P5 is a unilateral exercise and the petitioner is not even a signatory to the same. In the above view of the matter, necessary action on Ext.P3 shall be taken by the competent among the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶62

These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

SVP

WP(C).Nos.2011 & 2019 OF 2020

¶68

¶69

¶70

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶71

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE SHREE UDIYANNOOR DEVI KSHETHRA YOGAM DATED 2.7.1985.

¶72

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND, KRISHNAN KUTTY DATED 9.4.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUMALA DATED 28.10.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REPORTS OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUMALA AND VILLAGE OFFICER, POOTHAKULAM DATED 15.11.2019. EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF THE FRAUDULENT DEED NUMBERED AS 119/1985 III DATED 17.1.1985. EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2019. EXHIBIT P7 THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.56/94. EXHIBIT P8 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.1409/2010.

¶73

WP(C).Nos.2011 & 2019 OF 2020

¶74

¶75

¶76

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶77

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE SHREE UDIYANNOOR DEVI KSHETHRA YOGAM DATED 2.7.1985.

¶78

Santhakumari v. Vs Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhakumari v. Vs Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Surendran Vs the State of Kerala

Mathew, Vs the State Bank of India

Premalatha R Vs Village Officer

Biji P Mathew Vs State of Kerala

C.K. Haridasan Vs Anu Prathap M.V.

Rajan S., Vs the District Medical Officer