O R D E R

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The complainant’s case is that her marriage with S. Jamaludeen Rawther has legally solemnized by K.T. Muhammed Salim Maulavi, the Imam of Pazhakulam Muslim Jama Ath on payment of the required fees and the said marriage was also registered in the marriage register kept in the Jama-ath.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party, the then President of Pazhakulam Muslim Jama-ath, for getting a copy of her marriage certificate and requested him to enter her name in the membership register of the said Jama-ath as the wife of the said Jamaludeen Rawther.  But the 1^st opposite party denied the complainant’s demand by saying that her marriage with the said Jamaludeen Rawther could not be recognized, since a marriage with one Usman Labba and the complainant is existing.  Moreover, the 1^st opposite party openly announced the said matter before the general body of the Jama-ath also.  Thereby the complainant was defamed and none of the members of the Jama Ath is not accepting her as the wife of Jamaludeen Rawther.  But the complainant’s first marriage with the above said Usman Labba was divorced by the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor on 7.1.02 in O.S.No.217/01 and the 2^nd marriage was solemnized on 23.3.03 after the confirmation of the divorce decree.  The divorce of the 1^st marriage was also brought to the notice of the imam before her 2^nd marriage with Jamaludeen Rawther.  The 1^st opposite party denied the complainant’s marriage certificate and her membership was due to the reason that the 1^st opposite party is a close friend of the complainant’s first husband’s son Ansari and the complainant’s 2^nd husbands first wife is a close relative of the 1^st opposite party.  The non-issuance of the marriage certificate and the defamatory statement made by the 1^st opposite party caused severe mental agony to the complainant.  Legal notice demanding the marriage certificate and the membership along with compensation for ` 1 lakh was issued by the complainant.  The said notice was refused by the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party and the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party had not acted as per the notice though he had accepted the said notice.  Opposite parties are liable to issue a marriage certificate as she had remitted the required fees for the registration of the marriage and the marriage had already been registered in the Jama-ath.  The non issuance of the marriage certificate and the defamatory statement made by the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party are deficiency of service of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties to issue the marriage certificate of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther and for the inclusion of her name in the membership register as the wife of Jamaludeen Rawther along with compensation of ` 1 lakh for the mental agony sustained to the complainant due to the defamatory statement made by the 1^st opposite party. 

                   3. Since opposite parties are declared exparte, this Forum allowed this complaint on the basis of the proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 and directed the opposite parties to issue a marriage certificate of the complainant along with membership certificate and further directed to pay compensation of ` 2,000 and cost of ` 1,000.

                   4. Aggrieved by the order of this Forum, opposite parties filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CDRC vide Appeal No.809/05.  After hearing the parties the Hon’ble CDRC allowed the appeal and set aside the order of this Forum and remanded back the complaint for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the appellants/opposite parties for filing their version and adducing evidence by the parties.

                   5. Subsequent to the remand, this Forum issued notices to both sides.  The complainant and the 2^nd opposite party appeared.  The 1^st opposite party has not turned up and hence the 1^st opposite party was declared as exparte. 

                  6. On appearance, the 2^nd opposite party filed a version with the following main contentions.  According to the 2^nd opposite party, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the subject matter of this complaint does not comes under Consumer Protection Act.  A 2^nd opposite party denied the alleged marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther.  As per the law of Pazhakulam Muslim Jama Ath, the Secretary is the competent authority to issue the marriage certificate.  The 2^nd marriage is not permitted before the separation of the 1^st marriage as per Islamic Sari-ath Law.  The 1^st marriage of the complainant with Usman Labba was not dissolved as per Islamic Law and the said Usman Labba informed the Jama-ath that he had not divorced (Xem¡v sNmÃnbn«nÃ) the complainant as per Muslim Law. Muhammed Salim Maulavi, the Imam who conducted the marriage as claimed by the complainant also informed that such a marriage was not taken place as per the law.  If the 1^st marriage was legally divorced the membership of the complainant at Pazhakulam Jama-ath will be ceased automatically and in that event the complainant’s marriage can be solemnized only at her house or at the place of her new husband and that too can be done only with the approval of the Jama Ath where the family house of the complainant situates.  A\phmZ]{XnI of the complainant’s Jama Ath is also required for such a marriage.  But A\phmZ]{XnI is not transferred and they have not conducted any marriage.  E.Y. Muhammed Salim Maulavi who solemnized the marriage of the complainant as claimed by the complainant had stated before the General Body of Pazhakulam Jama Ath that such a marriage was not solemnized and the records in respect of the said marriage is fabricated and he had not put his signature in the marriage register and none of the members of the Pazhakulam Jama Ath had put their signature in the marriage register as witnesses.  The parents of the complainant and her husband never applied to Pazhakulam Jama Ath for conducting her marriage and they have not collected any fees from them for conducting the marriage.  The said Jamaludeen Rawther is still receiving the family pension of his deceased wife Parishamma and hence it is clear that he had not married the complainant.  The entries in the marriage register in respect of the complainant’s marriage with the said Jamaludeen Rawther is a fabricated entry and since it is being a fabricated entry it was cancelled as per the decision of the General Body of the Jama Ath and hence the Jama Ath had no liability to issue such a marriage certificate to the complainant.  After knowing about the cancellation of the entry, the complainant also informed the Jama Ath that her marriage was held at her brother’s house at Thevalakkara and hence the marriage certificate in respect of that marriage has to be given by the Jama Ath where her brother’s house situates.  A non-muslim is not entitled to be a witness to a Thalak kuri as per Sari-ath Law and in the event of a non-muslim becomes a witness of any Thalak kuri, that Thalak kuri itself is illegal.  Pazhakulam Jama-ath is not arrayed as a party in this in this case.  A non-member of Pazhakulam Jama-ath is not entitled to get any certificate from Pazhakulam Jama Ath.  No fees for marriage have not been collected.  So the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  With the above contentions, the 2^nd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 

                   7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points were raised for consideration:

(1)         Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(2)         Whether the reliefs sought for in the plaint are allowable?

(3)         Reliefs and Costs?

                   8. In this case, the complainant was examined in chief as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked before the remand.  Subsequent to the remand, PW1 was further chief examined on the basis of an additional chief affidavit and Exts.A7 to A11 were marked and PWs.2 and 3 were also examined from the side of the complainant.  For the opposite parties, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B4 series were marked after remand.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

                   9. Points 1 to 3:  The complainant’s allegation is that her second marriage with Jamaludeen Rawther was solemnized on 23.03.2003 as per the Muslim Law and her marriage was also registered in the marriage register kept at Pazhakulam Muslim Jama Ath.  The second marriage was solemnized after the legal divorce of her first marriage.  But the opposite parties denied to issue a marriage certificate to the complainant in respect of her second marriage and also denied to include her name in the membership register as the wife of his second husband Jamaludeen Rawther.  The first opposite party was also made a statement before the general body that the complainant’s second marriage could not be accepted as her first marriage is not divorced and the complainant cannot be treated as the wife of the said Jamaludeen Rawther.  The above said acts of the opposite parties are deficiency of service and the statement of the first opposite party defamed her.  Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant has sustained mental agony and other distress and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.

                   10. In order to prove the complainant’s allegations, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 on the basis of the proof affidavits and 2 witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3 and the documents produced from the side of the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A11.  Ext.A1 is the certified copy of the judgment-dated 07.01.2002 in O.S. 217/2001 of Munsiff’s Court, Adoor showing the divorce of the complainant’s first marriage with Usman Labba.  Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the extract of the marriage register of Noorul Huda Jama Ath, Pazhakulam showing the second marriage of the complainant with S. Jamaludeen Rawther, which was solemnized on 23.03.2003.  Ext.A3 is the photocopy of receipt No.187 dated 23.03.2003 of the above said Jama Ath showing the receipt of ` 300 as marriage contribution from Jamaludeen, the second husband of the complainant.  Ext.A4 is the photocopy of the Advocate Notice dated 20.11.2003 issued by Adv. P.K. Valsala to the opposite parties.  Ext.A5 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A4 signed by the second opposite party.  Ext.A6 is the undelivered registered cover addressed to the first opposite party with endorsement ‘not claimed’.  Ext.A7 is the photocopy of a letter-dated 19.08.2009 submitted by the second husband of the complainant before the President of Pazhakulam Jama Ath.  Ext.A8 is the original of Ext.A3 receipt.  Ext.A9 is the attested copy of Talak Kuri dated 02.11.2001 signed by the first husband of the complainant and 3 witnesses showing the dissolution of the complainant’s first marriage.  Ext.A10 is the postal acknowledgment card dated 04.11.2010 signed by DW3.  Ext.A11 is the original of Ext.A9 Talak Kuri. 

                   11. On the other hand, the opposite parties’ contention is that the complainant’s first marriage with Usman Labba was not legally divorced as per Muslim Law and hence the alleged second marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther cannot be treated as a legal marriage as per Muslim Law.  The entries in respect of the complainant’s second marriage seen in the marriage register of Pazhakulam Jama Ath is a fabricated entry which was made by the then office bearers of the Jama Ath in collusion with the complainant and her second husband for legalising an illegal marriage.  The said fact was realized later and the general body meeting of the Jama Ath held on 23.05.2003 decided to cancel the entry regarding the complainant’s second marriage and it was cancelled accordingly.  The said cancellation was made also on the basis of the written complaint of the complainant’s first husband Usman Labba and a letter from the then Imam Muhammed Salim Maulavi stating that the alleged second marriage of the complainant is illegal and the entry in the marriage register is a willful fabrication. 

                   12. According to the opposite parties, the alleged second marriage of the complainant was not solemnized as per the law, custom and the rites and the formalities required for a marriage was also not complied by the complainant.  None of the parents of the complainant and her husband made any application or remitted any fees for the alleged marriage to Jama Ath.  The talak kuri must be witnessed by Muslims.  But the talak kuri alleged to have been executed by the complainant’s first husband is witnessed by non-muslims and hence the said talak kuri has no legal validity. 

                   13. According to the opposite parties, the complainant is not a member of the Pazhakulam Jama Ath and her second marriage is illegal and against the Muslim Law and the fabricated entry made in the marriage register was cancelled and the said cancellation was made by the general body meeting of the Jama Ath who had powers for the same.  Therefore, they argued that they are not liable to comply the prayers in the complaint filed by the complainant.

                   14. In order to prove the contentions of the oppositeparties, the present Secretary of the second opposite party filed a proof affidavit and on the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and 3 witnesses were also examined for the opposite parties as DWs.2 to 4.  The documents produced from the side of the opposite parties were marked as Exts.B1 to B4 series.  Ext.B1 is the application-dated 10.06.2003 submitted by A. Latheef, brother of the complainant before the Pazhakulam Jama Ath Committee.  Ext.B2 is the minutes book of Pazhakulam Jama Ath for the period from 2003 to 2004.  Ext.B2(a) is the minutes of the general body held on 23.05.2003 (page No.197 to 205).  Ext.B2(b) is the middle portion of Ext.B2(a) minutes (page No.201) showing the decision regarding the cancellation of the marriage of the complainant.  Ext.B2(c) is the serial No.28 in Page No.198 of Ext.B2(a) minutes showing the name and signature of S. Jamaludeen Rawther.  Ext.B3 is the bye-law of Pazhakulam Jama Ath. Ext.B3(a) is the first item of chapter 8 (page No.7) in Ext.B3.  Ext.B3(b) is the first item of chapter 28 (page No.35) of Ext.B3.  Ext.B3(c) is the item No.17 in chapter 10 (page No.16) of Ext.B3.  Ext.B3(d) is the first item of chapter 7 (page No.7) of Ext.B3.  Ext.B3(e) is the item No.6 of chapter 5 (page No.5) of Ext.B3.  Ext.B4 is the marriage register for the year 2001, 2002 and 2003.  Ext.B4(a) is the relevant page of Ext.B4 marriage register in respect of the marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther.  Ext.B4(b) is the entry made in Ext.B4(a) showing the cancellation of Ext.B4(a) marriage registration. 

                   15. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record.  The first question to be decided is whether the complainant’s first marriage with Usman Labba is legally divorced.  Ext.A1 divorce decree of Munsiff’s Court, Adoor, Ext.A11 talak kuri and the deposition of DW4 clearly show that the first marriage of the complainant with Usman Labba was legally divorced.  The relevant portion of the deposition of DW4 in cross-examination who is also the first husband of the complainant is as follows:  lÀPnI£nbpw Rm\pw X½nepÅ hnhmlw thÀs]Sp¯p¶Xn\v O.S.217/2001 Bbn Adoor Munsiff’s Court- lÀPnI£n (kpldm _ohn) lÀPn t_m[n¸n¨ncp¶p.  2002 P\phcn 7þmw XobXn Sn lÀPn A\phZn¨v D¯chmbn«pÅXmWv.  Fsâ AUzt¡äpw, lÀPn¡mcnbpsS AUzt¡äpw R§fpw tNÀ¶v lÀPn¡mcnbpsS AUzt¡äv Bb hdpKokv apXemfnbpsS ho«n h¨mWv kwkmcn¨v settlement D­m¡nbXv AhnsSh¨p sNmÃpIpdn FgpXpIbpw sNbvXp. The second question to be decided is whether the second marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther had been legally solemnized as claimed by the complainant.  Ext.A8 receipt issued by Pazhakulam Jama Ath shows that an amount of ` 250/- as marriage contribution was collected from the second husband of the complainant Jamaludeen on 23.03.2003.  Ext.A7 shows that the said Jamaludeen Rawther had applied and remitted marriage fees to Pazhakulam Jama Ath for solemnizing his marriage with the complainant.  This along with deposition of PW2 clearly shows that the second marriage of the complainant with said Jamaludeen Rawther was legally solemnized on 23.03.2003.  The relevant portion of the deposition of PW2 is as follows: “Cu tIknse lÀPnI£nbptSbpw Fkv. Pamep±o³ dmhp¯cptSbpw hnhmlw \S¡p¶ Ime¯v Rm\mbncp¶p sk{I«dn.  AhcpsS \n¡mlv \S¶Xv ]Ånbn h¨mWv (]gIpfw \qdp Ppam akvPnZv)”.

                   16. The next question is whether the above said marriage was registered at Pazhakulam Jama Ath.  Ext.A2 photocopy of the extract of the marriage register of Pazhakulam Jama Ath in respect of the complainant’s second marriage and Ext. B4(a) is a prima facie evidence of the registration of the complainant’s second marriage.  This along with the deposition of PWs.2 and 3 clearly show that the second marriage of the complainant was registered at Pazhakulam Jama Ath.  The relevant portion of deposition of PW2 is as follows: “Rm³ (]gIpfw \qdp lpZm PamA¯nsâ 2003 Imebfhnse sk{I«dn Bbncp¶p.  C.ssh.apl½Zv keow auehn B Imebfhnse Cu PamA¯nse Camw Bbncp¶p.  Ct¸mÄ At±lw AhnsS AÃ.  PamA¯nse ]pcpjsâtbm, kv{XobpsStbm hnhmlw FhnsSh¨v \S¯pt¼mgpw PamA¯n At]£ \ÂIWw.  sk{I«dnbv¡mWv At]£ \ÂtI­Xv. At]£tbmsSm¸w At]£m^okpw \ÂtI­XmWv.  AXn\v ckoXpw \evImdp­v.  AXv sk{I«dn H¸n«mWv \ÂIp¶Xv.................A{]Imcw ChcpsS hnhmlw cPnÌÀ sNbvXn«p­v (QA). BbXnsâ tIm¸nbmWv Ct¸mÄ Fs¶ ImWn¨ Ext.A2.  Ext.A2þ Fsâ H¸p­v.  CXv X¿mdm¡nbXv Rm\mWv.  AXnse ]dªn«pÅ Imcy§Ä icnbpw kXyhpamWv (QA).  Ext.A2 Cjyp sNbvXt¸mgpw Rm³ H¸n«n«p­v.................lÀPnI£nsb samgn sNmÃnbXnte¡pÅ sNmÃpIpdnbpsS tIm¸nbmWv Ct¸mÄ Fs¶ ImWn¨Xv.  Sn sNmÃpIpdn Sn Dkvam³ eº Pam A¯n \ÂInbn«p­v.  .................Ext.A1 Judgmentþsâ tIm¸nbpw Pam A¯n e`n¨n«pÅXmWv.  CÉmw icnA¯v \nba{]Imcw lÀPnI£nbpw Pamep±o\pw X½nepÅ hnhmlw \nbam\pkrXhpw km[phpamWv (QA)”.  The relevant portion of the deposition of PW3 is as follows:- “]gIpfw PamA¯n hnhml cPnÌÀ kq£n¡mdp­v. hnhml cPnÌÀ ]qcn¸n¡p¶Xv sk{I«dnbmWv. hnhmlw \S¯p¶Xn\v hcsâ `mK¯p\nt¶m, h[phnsâ `mK¯p \nt¶m At]£ \ÂImdp­v.  A§s\ \S¯p¶ hnhml§Ä¡v kÀÆokv NmÀÖv (^okv) hm§mdp­v.  h[phpw hc\pw Ext.A2þ (hnhml cPnÌÀ) H¸nSmdp­v.  km£nIfpw H¸nSmdp­v.  B  Pam A¯n \S¡p¶ hnhml§Ä ]Ånbn sh¨mbncn¡Wsa¶v \nÀ_ÔanÃ............... Ext.A2 þsâ sanctity kw_Ôn¨v F\n¡v XÀ¡anÔ.

                  17. On the basis of the above said materials, we find that the first marriage of the complainant was legally divorced, the second marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther is legal and the said legal marriage is registered at Pazhakulam Jama Ath. 

                   18. The next question to be decided is whether the decision taken by Pazhakulam Jama Ath general body held on 23.05.2003 for canceling the registration of the complainant’s second marriage with Jamaludeen Rawther had any legal sanctity?  According to the opposite parties, the general body had powers to cancel the registration of a marriage if it is found illegal.  The cancellation was also on the basis of a complaint submitted by the first husband of the complainant against the second marriage of the complainant. The opposite parties had a contention that the alleged sNmÃpIpdn is illegal as the attesters of the sNmÃpIpdn is non-muslims.

         19. In order to substantiate the contention of the opposite parties that the general body had powers to cancel the marriage registration, they have produced the bye-law of the Jama Ath which is marked as Ext.B3 and the relevant portion in Ext.B3 showing power of the general body is marked as Ext.B3(d).  On a perusal of Ext.B3, it is seen that, that provision (Ext.B3(d)) is only a general provision and there is no specific mention in that provision to show that the general body had the power to cancel a marriage.  The opposite parties’ contention is that the second marriage of the complainant was cancelled on the strength of Ext.B3(d) provision of Ext.B3 bye-law and as per the decision of the general body meeting held on 23.05.2003.  In support of that contention they have produced the minutes book of the Jama Ath and it was marked as Ext.B2 and the minutes of the general body held on 23.05.2003 in Ext.B2 is marked as Ext.B2(a).  The relevant portions in Ext.B2(a) pertaining to the contentions of the opposite parties were marked as Ext.B2(b) and Ext.B2(c).  On a perusal of Ext.B2 minutes, it is seen that an agenda pertaining to the second marriage of the complainant has not been included for the general body held on 23.05.2003.  The minutes of the said general body was not signed by the person who presided over the general body and not even recorded the name of the person presided in the said general body.  Further, the details regarding the number of members’ stands in favour of the cancellation of the marriage is not seen recorded.  On a reading of the said minutes, it is seen that the first husband of the complainant had submitted a complaint before the Jama Ath in connection with the second marriage of the complainant.  But in this case, the said alleged complaint is not produced before this Forum by the opposite parties.  It is also seen from the minutes that they are not admitting the second marriage of the complainant as her first marriage was not legally divorced which means that they are not admitting Ext.A2, the decree passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor.  Since the Munsiff’s Court is a competent authority, how can they say that they are not admitting the decree of a competent authority?  The opposite parties also failed to adduce any evidence to show that talak kuri should be attested by muslims.  The signature of Jamaludeen Rawther seen in Ext.B2(c) minutes book and Ext.A7 letter are different.  So the opposite parties’ contention that the second husband of the complainant was also present in the general body held on 23.05.2003 (Ext.B2(a) is also not sustainable.    

          20. On the basis of the above discussions, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the opposite parties that the second marriage of the complainant was cancelled as per the decision of the general body held on 23.05.2003.  Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the Jama Ath had given a notice to the complainant or her second husband calling their explanation, if any, before the alleged cancellation of marriage.  This is a clear violation of natural justice.  Therefore, we find that the cancellation of the complainant’s second marriage by the Jama Ath is illegal and hence the cancellation made in Ext.B4 marriage register pertaining to the registration of the complainant’s second marriage is also illegal.  Since the opposite parties had collected marriage fees as a service charge from the complainant’s second husband and the non-issuance of the marriage certificate is a clear deficiency in service and hence this complaint is maintainable and allowable.

          21. In the result, this complaint is allowed; thereby the second opposite party is directed to issue the marriage certificate of the complainant’s marriage with Jamaludeen Rawther along with her membership certificate being the husband of Jamaludeen Rawther.  The second opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost.  Since there is no specific evidence against the first opposite party, we find no personal liability against the first opposite party.  The second opposite party is directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  The amount ordered will carry the interest at the rate of 10% per annum from today till the whole realisation, in case of non-compliance of the order of this Forum by the second opposite party. 

                   Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16^th day of June, 2011.

                                                                                                        (Sd/-)

                                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                    (President)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                   :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :           A. Suhara Beevi

PW2 :           Jalaludin

PW3 :           E.Y. Mohammed Salim Maulavi

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :         Certified copy of the judgment-dated 07.01.2002 in O.S.  

                    217/2001 of Munsiff’s Court, Adoor.

A2     :         Pphotocopy of the extracts of the marriage register of Noorul 

                    Huda Jama Ath, Pazhakulam.

A3     :         Photocopy of receipt No.187 dated 23.03.2003 of Pazhakulam

                   Jama Ath.

A4     :         Photocopy of the Advocate Notice dated 20.11.2003 issued by

                    Adv. P.K. Valsala in the name of the opposite parties.

A5     :         Acknowledgment card of Ext.A4 signed by the second opposite

                    party.

A6     :         Undelivered registered cover addressed to the first opposite

                    party with endorsement ‘not claimed’.

A7     :         Photocopy of a letter-dated 19.08.2009 submitted by the

                    second husband of the complainant before the President of

                    Pazhakulam Jama Ath.

A8     :         Original of Ext.A3 receipt.

A9     :         Attested copy of Talak Kuri dated 02.11.2001 signed by the

                    first husband of the complainant and 3 witnesses showing the

                    dissolution of the complainant’s first marriage.

A10   :         Postal acknowledgment card dated 04.11.2010 signed by

                    DW3.

 A11  :         Original of Ext.A9 Talak Kuri. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 :         Anvarsha. S

DW2 :         Sali. I

DW3 :         Kabeer Rawther

DW4 :         M.H. Usman Labba

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :         Application-dated 10.06.2003 submitted by A. Latheef, brother

                   of the complainant before the Pazhakulam Jama Ath

                   Committee.

B2     :         Minutes book of Pazhakulam Jama Ath for the period from

                   2003 to 2004.

B2(a) :         Minutes of the general body held on 23.05.2003 (page No.197

                   to 205)

B2(b)          :         Middle portion of Ext.B2(a) minutes (page No.201) showing the

                   decision regarding the cancellation of the marriage of the

                   complainant.

 B2(c):        Serial No.28 in Page No.198 of Ext.B2(a) minutes

                    showing the name and signature of S. Jamaludeen Rawther.

B3     :         Bye-law of Pazhakulam Jama Ath.

B3(a) :         First item of chapter 8 (page No.7) in Ext.B3.

B3(b)          :         First item in chapter 28 (page No.35) of Ext.B3.

B3(c) :         Item No.17 in chapter 10 (page No.16) of Ext.B3.

B3(d)          :         First item of chapter 7 (page No.7) of Ext.B3.

B3(e)          :         Item No.6 of chapter 5 (page No.5) of Ext.B3.

B4     :         Marriage register during the year 2001, 2002 and 2003. 

B4(a) :         Relevant page of Ext.B4 marriage register in respect of the

                    marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther.

B4(b)          :         Entry made in Ext.B4(a) showing the cancellation of Ext.B4   

                    marriage registration.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                     Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) A. Suhara Beevi, Labba House, Thevalakkara.P.O.,

                     Poonkulanji, Pathanapuram, Kollam Dist.

(2)  Sayyed Mohammed, Valiyavilavadakkethil, President,

             Noorulhuda Muslim Jama-Ath, Pazhakulam.P.O.,

             Pathanamthitta Dist – 691 527.

(3)  Secretary, Noorulhuda Muslim Jama-Ath,

             Pazhakulam.P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist – 691 527.

       (4)  The Stock File.