JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that Ext.P1 marriage ceremony certificate issued by the 'Mishra Vivaha Samithy' and Ext.P3 certificate of marriage issued under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 are non est in the eye of law, and also to quash Exts.P5 and P8 orders passed by the Registrar of Marriages, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation dated 29.10.2013, and the District Marriage Registrar (General) and Deputy Director, respectively. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner belongs to Hindu religion, who got married with the 4th respondent, a Christian, as per the marriage ceremony conducted by an organization called 'Mishra Vivaha Samithy', Thiruvananthapuram, having registration No.502/87. Ext.P1 certificate was issued by the said organization, certifying the marriage. On the strength of Ext.P1, according to the petitioner, the 4th respondent secured Ext.P3 certificate from the Registrar under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (for short, 'Rules, 2008'). Thereafter, Ext.P4 application was submitted by the petitioner for cancellation of the entry made in Ext.P3, before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected as per Ext.P5 order, against which, Ext.P6 appeal was preferred before the rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent also rejected the appeal as per Ext.P8 order. 3. The contention advanced by the petitioner is that, petitioner and the 4th respondent belong to two different faiths, and no customary marriage either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Indian Christian Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act had taken place between the parties. Therefore, the entries made in Ext.P3 certificate ought to have been removed by invoking the powers conferred under Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008. The appellate authority also failed to appreciate the law correctly, and therefore, the orders are passed by the primary as well as the appellate authorities without appreciating the legal circumstances provided under the Rules, and therefore, arbitrary and illegal. 4. A statement is filed by the 2nd respondent, disputing the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. The appellate authority also failed to appreciate the law correctly, and therefore, the orders are passed by the primary as well as the appellate authorities without appreciating the legal circumstances provided under the Rules, and therefore, arbitrary and illegal. 4. A statement is filed by the 2nd respondent, disputing the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, in accordance with the information provided by the Local Registrar, petitioner and the 4th respondent appeared before the Registrar and submitted a memorandum in the prescribed form that their marriage was solemnized at 4.45 p.m. at a hall in the presence of independent witnesses, who had also appeared in person and affixed their signature. It is further submitted that, the certificate of the Mishra Vivaha Samithi and the age proof of both the parties were also produced and on the strength of the above documents, the Registrar realized that the marriage was solemnized and the same was registered vide No.2530/13, and accordingly a marriage certificate was issued. The bride and bridegroom had signed in Form 3 of the Marriage Register. 5. It is also stated that, on 14.08.2013, an application was submitted and the 2nd respondent conducted a hearing and in the hearing, petitioner submitted that the marriage was solemnized and she had stayed in the house of the 4th respondent for one day, but she was not interested to continue the relationship, and thereupon, decided to cancel the registration. The 4th respondent stated that he was not in favour of cancelling the registration. Accordingly, after appreciating the powers conferred in accordance with the Rules alone, the application was dismissed. It is also submitted that, since the marriage was registered without any delay, it can only be presumed, in accordance with Ext.P1 certificate, the marriage was solemnized, and therefore, registration was reasonably possible under the Registration Rules, 2008. 6. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, basically supporting the ceremonies underwent by the parties, and admitting that, he is a person belonging to Christian community, and that there is no valid marriage by and between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. It is also stated thereunder that no valid marriage was solemnized by and between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. 7. It is also stated thereunder that no valid marriage was solemnized by and between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 8. The paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner was relying upon Rule 13 of the Registration Rules, 2008, which read thus: “13. Correction and cancellation of entries.--(1) If the Local Registrar is satisfied either suo motu or on application by the parties, that any entry in the Register of Marriages (Common) is erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he shall subject to conditions in sub-rule (2), make suitable corrections including cancellation of registration, noting the evidence for such corrections in the margin of the Register of Marriages (Common), without any alteration of the original entry and shall sign the marginal entry with the date of correction or cancellation and shall forward the particulars of the corrections to the Registrar General concerned. (2) All corrections in material particulars like name, age, date etc., and cancellation shall be done only with the sanction of the Registrar General concerned: Provided that no such correction or cancellation shall be made without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. (3) On getting sanction under sub-rule (2), the Local Registrar shall effect the correction or cancellation, as the case may be, in the Register of Marriages (Common). (4) An amount of rupees one hundred shall be charged as fee for making corrections in the Register of Marriages (Common) other than clerical mistakes. (5) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this Rule, intimation thereof shall be sent to the parties to the marriage and the Local Registrar shall make a report giving necessary details to the Registrar General concerned.” 9. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, looking on the powers conferred under Rule 13, there is every power vested with the 2nd respondent to cancel the entries made in the register of Marriages, since a marriage in accordance with law has not taken place. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, looking on the powers conferred under Rule 13, there is every power vested with the 2nd respondent to cancel the entries made in the register of Marriages, since a marriage in accordance with law has not taken place. Learned counsel has taken me through Ext.P1 certificate issued by the organization, from where it is discernible, it is a registered organization constituted for the purpose of solemnizing inter-caste marriages. It is also an admitted fact that the marriage was solemnized by and between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, it is an incorrect entry made in the certificate, since there was no legal marriage solemnized by and between the parties, belonging to two religions, and therefore, the Registrar was duty bound to appreciate the law in accordance with Rule 13, and ought to have removed the entries made in the Marriage Register. 10. It is further submitted that, the 3rd respondent has also not appreciated the law properly, and therefore, the orders passed by the primary authority as well as the appellate authority cannot be sustained under law. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in 'Thankamma Koshy v. State of Kerala and Others' [ 2016 (3) KLT 978 ], wherein, it is held that, 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 was further held that, when the parties belong to two different and distinct religions, a legally valid marriage could be conducted only by having the same registered under Special Marriage Act, 1954. That apart, it is held that, the certificates issued by SNDP Yogam in respect of solemnization of marriages between the members of two communities cannot be said to be valid certificates. 11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that, the Registrar is only duty bound to conduct a summary enquiry as to the legality of the marriage and he can never be termed as a competent authority to decide on the competency to marry or rule upon the validity of such marriages. 11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that, the Registrar is only duty bound to conduct a summary enquiry as to the legality of the marriage and he can never be termed as a competent authority to decide on the competency to marry or rule upon the validity of such marriages. Therefore, when Ext.P1 certificate was produced before the marriage officer, the marriage was registered. It is also pointed out that, the power conferred under Rule 13 of a Marriage Registrar is only for removing an entry made in the register, if it is erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made. Therefore, there is no power vested with the Registrar under Rule 13 to cancel the entries made, for other reasons than the ones specified in Rule 13. 12. Learned Senior Counsel has also invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in 'Pranav A.M. & another v. Secretary, Engandiyur Grama Panchayat, Thrissur and another' [ 2018 (3) KHC 128 : 2018 (2) KLT 870 ], wherein, it is held that, the Registrar needs to have only a prima facie view that marriage has taken place in accordance with the personal law applicable to the parties, and once that is satisfied, he need not conduct further enquiry to the fact whether conversion to Hinduism or other religion is valid or not. It is further held that, having drawn such a prima facie conclusion, 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. However, it is further held that, the marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can take place only between two individuals, who are Hindus, and if one of the parties is not a Hindu, merely because marriage ceremony had been conducted in accordance with the Hindu religious rites, cannot validate such marriage under the Act. Ultimately, after appreciating the pros and cons, it was held that, there is no dispute that the parties underwent ceremonies and rituals in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act for performing the marriage, and therefore, the Registrar was duty bound to register the marriage. Thereupon, a direction was issued to the Registrar to register the marriage in accordance with the application submitted by the petitioners therein. 13. Thereupon, a direction was issued to the Registrar to register the marriage in accordance with the application submitted by the petitioners therein. 13. I have evaluated the rival contentions made across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 14. The sole question to be considered is, whether on the basis of an application submitted by one of the parties to a marriage, can an entry be cancelled by the Registrar making the powers conferred under Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008. As I have pointed out earlier, the Registrar is vested with powers under Rule 13, on being satisfied, either suo motu or on application by the parties, that any entry in the Register of Marriages (Common) is erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he shall subject to conditions in sub-rule (2), make suitable corrections in the margin of the Register of Marriages (Common), without any alteration of the original entry. 15. Here is a case where the application for cancellation of the entries was submitted by the petitioner alone. It is also pointed out in the order passed by the Registrar that the petitioner has admitted that the marriage has taken place and the petitioner and the 4th respondent resided together for one day. According to the Registrar, there is no erroneous entry either in form or substance or the petitioner did not have a case that the entries were made fraudulently or improperly, and therefore, there was no occasion for the Registrar to remove the entries or cancel the registration. This is exactly the contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also. 16. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the Registrar has passed the order declining to remove the entries or cancel the registration by understanding the power conferred on him properly. In Ext.P8 also, the District Registrar has considered the issue at length, and thereafter only, it was held that there is no power vested with the Registrar to cancel any marriage, other than for the reasons prescribed in Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008. 17. In Ext.P8 also, the District Registrar has considered the issue at length, and thereafter only, it was held that there is no power vested with the Registrar to cancel any marriage, other than for the reasons prescribed in Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on Ext.P7 Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.(Crl.) No.76 of 2014 dated 24.02.2014, wherein the marriage has taken place in a Local Committee Office of a political party, and therein, it is held that, such kind of marriages should not have been registered under the Rules, and the attention of the authorities concerned was invited to take necessary steps to prevent registration of such illegal marriages. 18. On evaluating the entire pros and cons, and facts and circumstances of the issue, I am of the considered opinion that, the Registrar has registered the marriage on being prima facie satisfied that a marriage was solemnized by and between the parties on the basis of the application submitted, and Ext.P1 certificate issued by the organization which conducted the inter-caste marriage. Therefore, in my considered opinion, even if there is any illegality in the solemnization of the marriage, it cannot be adjudicated by the Registrar, invoking the powers conferred under Rule 13 of Rules, 2008. But, such marriages can only be annulled by a competent court, in accordance with law. Therefore, I do not find any arbitrariness, illegality or other legal infirmities justifying interference in the orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, refusing to cancel the entries made in the marriage register, and the registration of the same. The writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.