JUDGMENT : The first petitioner is an Indian citizen and belongs to Hindu Community. The second petitioner is a citizen of Filipina. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner got converted to Hindu religion after undergoing sacred ceremonies and rites held at Vallivattam Sree Ayyappa Temple, Thrissur District and a certificate was issued by the temple authorities evidencing the said fact. Their marriage was solemnized on 13.9.2016 according to the custom applicable to the community to which the first petitioner belongs. 2. The petitioners approached the Marriage Registrar to register their marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages(Common) Rules, 2008 (for short, the 'Rules'). The Registrar refused to register the marriage as he entertained a doubt regarding the validity of the marriage in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioners asserted that they belong to Hindu Community and therefore, the Registrar was unable to ascertain the validity of declaration whether they belonged to Hindu Community. 3. The question, therefore, arises is whether the Registrar under the Rules, is bound to register any marriage upon a declaration made by the parties without entering into the satisfaction as to the legality of such marriage. Considering the importance of the issue, this Court appointed Smt.Surya Benoy as Amicus Curiae. 4. The marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act can take place only between two individuals, who are Hindus. If one of the parties is not a Hindu, merely because the marriage ceremony had been conducted in accordance with the Hindu religious rites, cannot validate such marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Amicus Curiae placed before me the judgments of this Court in Sabu K. Eliyas v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2014 (1) KHC 804 ], Rajesh Rajan v. Chief Registrar General of Marriages (Common), Tvm. and Others [ 2015 (4) KHC 752 ] and Thankamma Koshy v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2016 (4) KHC 600 ]. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the Registrar, in fact, is not deciding upon the validity of such marriage but only entering into the satisfaction whether he is bound to register such marriage or not. The learned Amicus Curiae particularly pointed out to me the 4th proviso to Rule 6 inserted by way of an amendment dated 16.2.2015. This proviso states that the marriage other than one solemnized as per the law in India shall not be registered under the Rules. The learned Amicus Curiae particularly pointed out to me the 4th proviso to Rule 6 inserted by way of an amendment dated 16.2.2015. This proviso states that the marriage other than one solemnized as per the law in India shall not be registered under the Rules. The learned Amicus Curiae after referring to Rule 10 pointed out to the nature of satisfaction to be entered into for registration of marriage after one year as referred therein by the Registrar General. It is further submitted that it is only on proof of satisfaction that the marriage has been solemnized, the Registrar General is bound to give suitable directions to the local Registrar to register the marriage. 5. I find force in the submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae. The registration of the marriage is not automatic. The legality of such marriage would depend upon the law applicable in India. What is the mode of satisfaction for registering the marriage to be entered by the registering officer, is the question that would give answer to the issue which is germane to the public law remedy. When a person declares that he is converted to Hindu, that would be sufficient for the public authorities to act. There is no formal ceremony of expiation necessary to effectuate a conversion to Hinduism. In the absence of any particular mode prescribed for conversion as a Hindu, without there being any mala fides that can be pointed out, the public authority cannot refuse to act upon such request. I am fortified with such a view, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumal Nadar (dead) by Legal Representative v. Ponnuswami Nadar (minor) [1978 KHC 429], the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Betsy and Another v. Nil [ 2009 (4) KHC 560 ] and the judgment of the learned single Judge in Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others [1975 KHC 299]. The freedom to practice any religion as mentioned in Article 25 of the Constitution of India is available to both the citizens as well as non-citizens. The freedom to practice any religion as mentioned in Article 25 of the Constitution of India is available to both the citizens as well as non-citizens. The Government or any other public offices cannot insist that they can only act upon such declaration based on a certificate issued by any authority appointed by the Government in this regard (see the judgment of this Court in Aysha v. The Director, Office of the Directorate of Printing Department [2018 (2) KHC 116). It is to be noted that the Registrar is only duty bound to conduct the summary enquiry as to the legality of the marriage. The Registrar is not the competent authority to decide on the competency to marry or validity of such marriage. He needs to have a prima facie view that the marriage has taken place in accordance with the personal law applicable to the parties. Once such a satisfaction is entered by the Registrar, he need not conduct further enquiry to the fact whether conversion to Hinduism or other religion is valid or not. As rightly pointed out by the learned Amicus-Curiae that, in Indian context acceptance or acknowledgment into a community is understood based on the social interactions of such convertee. However, an enquiry to be conducted for registering a marriage under the Rules is very limited as it has to be done within a shortest period of 45 days of marriage. On such background, it is very difficult for the Registrar to find out whether such convertee has been accepted by the community or not. It is to be noted that the validity of the marriage in accordance with the person is still open for consideration by the court concerned in appropriate stage if any dispute arises in such marriage. In fact, the Rules were framed pursuant to the directions in Seema v. Ashwani Kumar [2006 KHC 121], wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that registration itself cannot be a proof of valid marriage per se and would not be the determinative factor regarding validity of a marriage. Therefore, it is clear that the very purpose of registration of marriage is only to give a prima facie indication to accord evidence of marriage and not validity of such marriage. Therefore, it is clear that the very purpose of registration of marriage is only to give a prima facie indication to accord evidence of marriage and not validity of such marriage. The validity of marriage depends upon the personal law applicable, if the parties get married in accordance with the personal law or depend upon the secular law that is applicable to such marriage. 6. The question in regard to the marriage under the context of the Rules is only limited for conducting an enquiry whether the parties are married in accordance with the personal law applicable to the parties or in accordance with the secular law applicable. Once that satisfaction is entered into by the Registrar, the Registrar is bound to register such marriage, notwithstanding that he had entertained a doubt regarding the competency or capacity of the persons to contract or solemnize such marriage in accordance with the law applicable. 7. In view of the fact that there is no dispute that the parties underwent ceremonies and rituals in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act for performing the marriage, the Registrar ought to have registered the marriage. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the Registrar to register the marriage. This Court place great appreciation to the learned Amicus Curiae, who have ably assisted this Court on various aspects involved in this matter.