JUDGMENT : Can the Local Registrar of Marriages under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (the Rules) permit appearance of parties for compliance of the requirements of the Rules through video conferencing, is the moot question that falls for consideration in this matter. 2. The relevant facts are the following : The first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. The petitioners were Indian citizens. The first petitioner hails from Alappuzha District and the second petitioner hails from Kollam District. The first petitioner married the second petitioner on 23.01.2000 at St.Casimir's Church, Kadavoor in Kollam District. The first petitioner who was serving the Indian Space Research Organisation took up a foreign assignment in Ireland and was accordingly residing with his family in the said country since 2001. During 2009, the petitioners acquired Irish citizenship. Later, they have applied for and obtained registration as overseas citizens of India as well. It is stated by the petitioners that the employer of the first petitioner namely, M/s.Intel Corporation, Ireland re-located the first petitioner to USA during 2016 and consequently the petitioners are residing with their family in USA since 2016 on the strength of a L-1 Visa which the first petitioner holds and L-2 Visas which the second petitioner and her children hold. 3. It is stated by the petitioners that the Immigration Laws in USA have undergone drastic changes in the recent past and the first petitioner can continue to work in the said country only by upgrading his Visa to permanent resident status. Likewise, it is stated by the petitioners that the second petitioner also needs to upgrade her Visa to permanent resident status to continue to live with the first petitioner. In order to apply for permanent resident status in USA, it is stated that the petitioners need to provide their marriage certificate issued by the competent authority in their country along with their applications. The petitioners have, therefore, applied through their power holder, the father of the second petitioner for registration of their marriage under the Rules. On the said application, the first respondent, the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), having found after due enquiry that the first petitioner married the second petitioner on 23.01.2000, called upon the petitioners to appear before him to put their signatures in the Register of Marriages maintained under the Rules. On the said application, the first respondent, the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), having found after due enquiry that the first petitioner married the second petitioner on 23.01.2000, called upon the petitioners to appear before him to put their signatures in the Register of Marriages maintained under the Rules. Ext.P4 is the communication issued by the first respondent in this connection to the power holder of the petitioners. On receipt of Ext.P4 communication, the power holder of the petitioners sent Ext.P5 communication to the first respondent expressing the inability of the petitioners to appear in person before the first respondent. According to the first respondent, in the light of the provision contained in Rule 11, the marriage cannot be registered under the Rules without the parties being present before him. Consequently, the first respondent issued Ext.P6 communication to the power holder of the petitioners by which the power holder of the petitioners was informed that the application preferred by the petitioners for registration of their marriage would stand dismissed. Exts.P4 and P6 communications are under challenge in the writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they may face problems for re-entering USA, if they leave USA now for India to get their marriage registered. It is also the case of the petitioners that if they leave USA now for the said purpose, they may not get the benefit of their stay in USA till now to claim permanent resident status. It is the further case of the petitioners that since they have nobody to look after their children in the said country, if at all they leave the country, they have to take their children also with them and if the children are taken out of USA now, it is doubtful as to whether they could re-enter USA on account of the changes in the Immigration Laws of that country. According to the petitioners, in so far as it is found by the first respondent that the first petitioner has married the second petitioner on 23.01.2000 as claimed by the petitioners, no purpose whatsoever would be served by directing their personal appearance. The petitioners, therefore, seek directions to the first respondent to register their marriage by obtaining their personal appearance through video conferencing. 5. The petitioners, therefore, seek directions to the first respondent to register their marriage by obtaining their personal appearance through video conferencing. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4. 6. Rule 9 of the Rules dealing with the procedure for registration of marriage provides that the parties to the marriage shall submit a memorandum signed by them and two persons who witness the marriage in duplicate in the prescribed form along with three set of their photographs to the Local Registrar. The said Rule also provides that in the case of a marriage solemnised as per the religious rites, the marriage can be proved by the certificate of marriage issued by the religious authority concerned. Rule 10 of the Rules provides that as far as marriages solemnized before the commencement of the Rules in respect of which no memorandum for registration was filed on or before 31/12/2013 are concerned, such marriages be registered by the Local Registrar with the permission of the Registrar General. The said Rule also provides that in such cases, the memorandum shall be filed together with a declaration from a gazetted officer/Member of Parliament/Member of the Legislative Assembly/Member of Local Self Government Institutions in the prescribed form or with any other document to prove the solemnisation of marriage to the satisfaction of the Registrar General. The said Rule further provides that the Registrar General may conduct, if necessary, enquiries, through the Local Registrar or otherwise and give suitable direction to the Local Registrar regarding registration. Rule 11 of the Rules dealing with filing of a memorandum and Register of Marriages provides that on receipt of the memorandum, the Local Registrar shall verify the entries in the memorandum for their accuracy and completeness and enter the particulars thereof forthwith in the Register of Marriages maintained by him. The said Rule also provides that the parties to the marriage shall personally appear before the Local Registrar at least once prior to the registration of marriage and put their signatures in the Register of Marriages. As far as the instant case is concerned, it is beyond dispute that the petitioners have submitted the memorandum provided for in the Rules to the Local Registrar with all the requisite documents and fee. As far as the instant case is concerned, it is beyond dispute that the petitioners have submitted the memorandum provided for in the Rules to the Local Registrar with all the requisite documents and fee. Since the marriage of the petitioners was solemnised as per religious rites, they have produced along with the memorandum, Ext.P1 marriage certificate issued by the Parish Priest concerned to prove the marriage. Since the petitioners have not registered their marriage within the time stipulated in the Rules, they have also obtained permission of the Registrar General to register the marriage. Exts.P4 and P6 communications issued by the Local Registrar indicate that permission has been granted by the Registrar General, after satisfying based on enquiries that the marriage of the petitioners has been solemnized on 23.01.2000, as claimed by them. No doubt, the Local Registrar has called upon the petitioners to be present before him in the light of the provision contained in Rule 11 of the Rules referred to above. 7. It is seen that the Rules have been framed by the State in exercise of its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution in compliance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2006 (1) KLT 791). The said judgment of the Apex Court was one rendered, having regard to the fact that non-registration of marriages affects woman to a greater measure and that a provision making the marriages compulsorily registrable would be in the interest of the society. As far as the marriages took place prior to the Rules are concerned, the registration was not compulsory in terms of the Rules, but only optional. In Nishana Mol v. Alappuzha Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 251), this Court held that insistence on appearance of parties cannot be the rule, but the exception. It is clarified in the said case that the Local Registrar may obtain presence of the parties to the marriage in cases where the Registrar has reasonable doubts as to the identity of persons. In Nishana Mol v. Alappuzha Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 251), this Court held that insistence on appearance of parties cannot be the rule, but the exception. It is clarified in the said case that the Local Registrar may obtain presence of the parties to the marriage in cases where the Registrar has reasonable doubts as to the identity of persons. A Division Bench of this Court, however, took the view in Sarala Baby v. State of Kerala and others ( 2010 (2) KLT 66 ) that if the marriage is to be registered, the parties to the marriage shall be present before the Local Registrar and the inconvenience caused to the parties on account of the provision insisting personal appearance can never be a ground for reading down the provision in a different fashion. In the light of the said decision of the Division Bench, it cannot be held that personal appearance of the parties to the marriage can be dispensed with by the Local Registrar. 8. Coming to the core question posed for decision, it is worth referring to the Rule once again. As noted above, the relevant Rule is Rule 11. The relevant portion of the said Rule reads thus: “On receipt of a memorandum and the prescribed fee for registration, the Local Registrar shall verify the entries in the memorandum for their accuracy and completeness and enter the particulars thereof forthwith in the Register of Marriages (Common) maintained by him in Form No.III appended to these Rules. The parties to the marriage shall personally appear before the Local Registrar at least once prior to the registration of marriage and put their signature in the space provided for the purpose in the Register of Marriages (Common)” (underline supplied). As noted above, the question is whether the said provision can be interpreted as conferring power to the Local Registrar to ensure personal appearance through video conferencing as well. It is presumed that the law makers intend the court to apply to an ongoing statute/rule a construction that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since the introduction of the statute/rule. In other words, the language of the statute/rule, though necessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed in accordance with the need to treat it current law. In other words, the language of the statute/rule, though necessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed in accordance with the need to treat it current law. This means that the courts will be justified in interpreting provisions contained in the ongoing legislations in such a way making allowances for the relevant changes that have occurred since the introduction of the legislation in law, social conditions, technology etc. [See State v. S.J. Choudhary, [ (1996) 2 SCC 428 ]. The principle is that the law cannot remain standstill; it must change with the changing social concepts and values. If the law fails to respond to the needs of the changing society, then either it will stifle the growth of the society and choke its progress or if the society is vigorous enough, it will cast away the law which stands in the way of its growth. There cannot be any doubt that personal appearance of the parties to the marriage is insisted in terms of the Rules for registration of the marriage to ensure that the marriage is registered with their knowledge. If the purpose of the Rule which insists personal appearance of the parties to the marriage could be ensured by video conferencing, there shall not be any impediment for the court in interpreting the provisions in such a way as permitting insistence of personal appearance through video conferencing. It is common knowledge that the virtual presence of a person living in a different country can be ensured by video conferencing. In State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (Dr), [ (2003) 4 SCC 601 ], the Apex Court has approved in the context of criminal trial that the requirement of 'personal appearance' can be ensured through video conferencing as well. There cannot be any doubt that the Local Registrar can certainly ensure that the application for registration of the marriage is preferred with the knowledge of the parties, through video conferencing. If that be so, I am of the view that the provision contained in Rule 11 of the Rules can certainly be interpreted as enabling the Local Registrar to obtain personal appearance through video conferencing as well. If that be so, I am of the view that the provision contained in Rule 11 of the Rules can certainly be interpreted as enabling the Local Registrar to obtain personal appearance through video conferencing as well. A contrary interpretation, as observed by Justice Bhagawati in National Textile Workers’ Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan [ (1983) 1 SCC 228 ], would have the effect of allowing the dead hand of the past stifling the growth of the living present. 9. True, inconvenience caused by a rule can never be a ground for annulling the same or reading down the Rule in a different fashion. But, if the purpose of the rule could be ensured otherwise, should the parties be put to inconvenience? My conclusion is that if the purpose of the rule can be ensured otherwise, the provision of law can be interpreted by courts in a fashion not causing any inconvenience to the parties. I am fortified in this view by the principle quod est inconveniens, aut contra rationem non permissum est in lege (that which is inconvenient, or against reason, is not permitted in law). I am also fortified in this view by the following observation in the commentaries on 'Statutory Interpretation' by Francis Bennion: “The court seeks to avoid a construction that causes unjustifiable inconvenience to persons who are subject to the enactment, since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. Sometimes however there are overriding reasons for applying such a construction, for example where it appears that Parliament really intended it or the literal meaning is too strong.” I do not find any overriding reason in this matter for the court to interpret the provision contained in Rule 11 in such a fashion compelling the parties to the marriage to be physically present before the local Marriage Officer, for the purpose of registering their marriage. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to satisfy that the application of the petitioners is one preferred with their knowledge, through video conferencing, which facility may be provided to the first respondent by the power holder of the petitioners. Needless to say, the power holder of the petitioners can be permitted to sign in the Marriage Register on behalf of the petitioners.