JUDGMENT : The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: That the Registrar of Marriages is Secretary of Grama Panchayat, who is also the Registrar of Births and Deaths. All customary marriages have to be registered as per the directions of the Supreme Court dated 14-2-2006 and the State of Kerala framed rules in compliance with Supreme Court directions. The Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 which accordingly framed, insists for presence of parties before Registrar for registration of marriages which is impractical, illegal and unconstitutional and against the principles embodied under the Supreme Court direction. The petitioner is the father of Linu Mathew. Linu Mathew and his wife got married as per Christian rites. Thereafter they applied for registration of marriages. But due to network failure in the office of the 1st respondent it could not be done. So they returned to Dubai for joining job. During COVID pandemic and lock down, Linu Mathew lost his job. But to continue stay at Dubai with his five month pregnant wife, he is required to produce marriage certificate. Even though applied and personally present on 6.1.2020 and thereafter on 7.1.2020 and 8.1.2020, they could not get the marriage registered due to technical internet failure at Panchayat Office. They returned to Dubai on 8/1/2020 for joining their job after expiry of leave period. Now due to Pandemic restriction Linu lost his job and in-order to continue his stay at Dubai for supporting and helping his wife he has to produce the marriage certificate. The 1st respondent is duty bound to register the marriage and issue a marriage certificate. 2. It is in the light of the above averments and contentions, that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers : “1. issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions directing the 1st respondent to register the marriage of the petitioner's son Linu Mathew and his wife Rose Mary Sebastian without insisting for their personal presence and signature and issue marriage certificate to them, at the earliest. 2. Issue a Writ, order or direction declaring that the Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 to the extent it insists for personal presence of parties and putting signature in the marriage register for an already held marriage, is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. 3. 2. Issue a Writ, order or direction declaring that the Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 to the extent it insists for personal presence of parties and putting signature in the marriage register for an already held marriage, is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. 3. Issue such other writ, order or direction as if deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner is the father of the above said bride groom and he has been authorised by both the bride groom as well as the bride to file this writ petition on their behalf. 3. Shri.George Kuruvilla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submissions in tune with the pleadings in WP(c). Shri. Manu Vilsan, learned counsel appearing for R1 -Secretary, Thalavady Grama Panchayat would submit that the enquires of the 1st respondent have revealed that the petitioner's son one Linu Mathew and one Rose Mary Sebastian have solemnized their marriage on 30.12.2019 as per Christian Rites, in the Church concerned and that they had submitted application on 6.1.2020 before the 1st respondent for registration of their already solemnized marriage in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. But that due to system failure of the computer, the 1st respondent was not in a position to download the proforma of the memorandum of the marriage from the computer system and hence, the said application as well as similar applications of other parties could not be considered for registration and the technical snag in the computer system was resolved only on 10.1.2020 and that all other pending applications were duly considered for registration thereafter. But that it is learnt that the above said bride and bride groom had by then left to a foreign country and therefore, steps for registration of the solemnized marriage could not be thereafter finalised even though, the application was submitted on 6.1.2020 and the requisite fee was also paid by them. 4. The petitioner herein is the father of the bride groom (Linu Mathew) and it is his case that he has been duly authorized by the said bride groom (Linu Mathew) and Rose Mary Sebastian (bride) to file this writ petition (civil) for and on their behalf, as they are now in Dubai. 4. The petitioner herein is the father of the bride groom (Linu Mathew) and it is his case that he has been duly authorized by the said bride groom (Linu Mathew) and Rose Mary Sebastian (bride) to file this writ petition (civil) for and on their behalf, as they are now in Dubai. It is stated that the bride is now pregnant and she is employed as a Nurse, whereas the bride groom has lost his employment and as per the immigration rules of Dubai, and being an unemployed person, he can continue to further reside in that country on the basis of the job visa of his wife, only if they can prove by producing the certificate of registration of marriage, before the authorities of the said foreign Government. Further that on account of the restriction in the job visa and on account of the pregnancy as well as on account of the COVID-19 pandemic issues, the bride is not in a position to travel to Kerala and that therefore, the couple is not in a position to personally appear before the 1st respondent Registrar of Marriages for getting their solemnized marriage registered. 5. The petitioner would place reliance on the directions issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.37100 of 2017 in Pardeep Kodiveedu Cletus v. Local Registrar of Marriages (Common) [ 2018 (1) KLT 292 ] wherein it has been held by this Court that for the purpose of registration of already solemnised marriage, in extreme cases where the parties find it difficult to personally appear before the notified Registrar for registration of their already solemnised marriage, the same could also be effected through the process of video conferencing. It has been held by this Court in paragraph No.8 of Pardeep Kodiveedu Cletus's case (supra) that there cannot be any doubt with respect to the personal appearance of the parties to the marriage which 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. 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. That it is common knowledge that the virtual presence of a person living in a different country can be ensured by video conferencing and that the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (Dr.) [ (2003) 4 SCC 601 ] = 2003(2) KLT SN 35 (C. No.45) SC], has approved in the context of criminal trial that the requirement of 'personal appearance' can be ensured through video conferencing as well. Hence it was held by the Apex Court that there could not be any doubt that the Local Registrar can certainly ensure if the application for registration of the marriage is preferred with the knowledge of the parties through video conferencing and if that be so, 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, etc. The directions issued by this Court in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the above said judgment, are as follows:- “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. 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.” 6. Reliance has also been placed on the latest judgment of the Apex Court in In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID 19 Pandemic [2020(2)KHC 521 (SC)] emphasizing the necessity of adopting Video Conferencing for functioning of the legal system, etc. 7. After hearing all the parties concerned this Court is of the considered view that the directions and orders issued by this Court in Pardeep Kodiveedu Cletus case supra, could be made applicable in this case as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner (father of the bride groom) and the petitioner's wife( mother of the bride groom) are authorised by the said couple to sign in the marriage register for and on behalf of the said couple and that the petitioner would provide video conferencing facilities to the 1st respondent in case such facility is not available with the said officer. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed: (i) The 1st respondent Registrar of Marriages/Secretary of the Grama Panchayat will act upon the application already submitted by the above said couple on 6.1.2020 for registration of their solemnized marriage and the factual aspects in that regard may be immediately ascertained. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed: (i) The 1st respondent Registrar of Marriages/Secretary of the Grama Panchayat will act upon the application already submitted by the above said couple on 6.1.2020 for registration of their solemnized marriage and the factual aspects in that regard may be immediately ascertained. The petitioner will provide video conferencing facility to enable the 1st respondent Registrar to interact with the above said couple to ascertain the factum of the solemnization of the marriage and also as to whether they have authorised the petitioner and his wife to be the signatories in the marriage register for and on behalf of the said couple. (ii) The petitioner will file an affidavit stating that he has been fully authorised by the bride groom, to sign the marriage register for and on behalf of the bride groom and the petitioner's wife will also file a separate affidavit to the effect that she has been duly authoised by the bride to sign the marriage register for and on behalf of the bride. (iii) If it is ascertained that the petitioner herein and his wife (who are the parents of the bride groom) have been authorised by the said couple to sign the marriage register for and on behalf of the bride groom and the bride respectively, then after 1st completing the necessary formalities, the respondent will permit the petitioner herein to sign in the marriage register for and on behalf of the bride groom and the petitioner's wife should be permitted to sign the marriage register for and on behalf of the bride. (iv) Thereafter, the 1st respondent will forthwith issue the certificate of the registration of the marriage to the petitioner herein regarding the factum of the solemnization of the marriage of the above said couple. (v) Further it is ordered that the 1st respondent will ensure that the column immediately after the column, which has been signed by the petitioner and his wife in the marriage register, shall be left blank and registration of the further marriages should be endorsed and entered only in the column subsequent to the said vacant space in the marriage register. It is further ordered that the above said couple, shall personally appear before the 1st respondent Registrar and shall personally sign in the vacant column of the said marriage register within a period of 10 months from the date of issuance of the marriage certificate as afore stated. In case the above said couple do not comply with the above said directions and they do not personally appear and sign in the marriage register before the 1st respondent within the said outer time limit of 10 months from the issuance of the above said marriage certificate, then the 1st respondent Registrar will be at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner herein and give opportunity to the couple to personally report before him within a short time as may be given by the 1st respondent and still if the couple does not comply the said direction, then the 1st respondent Registrar will be at liberty to take steps to revoke the said registration and consequently to revoke the certificate of marriage so given. Thereupon the couple will be liable to surrender the original of such certificate of marriage to the 1st respondent Registrar. But such action of the 1st respondent will be without prejudice to the right of the couple to subsequently approach the 1st respondent to seek for fresh registration of the solemnized marriage in accordance with the Rules. But in such an eventuality they will have to personally appear and sign in the marriage register. 8. The petitioner will ensure that the above said affidavits as well as video conferencing facility is provided without any further delay. 9. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of the judgment along with the copy of the memorandum of the WP(c) with all the exhibits before the 1st respondent Registrar of Marriages for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.