Case Status

Updated: 27 March 2026

On 23 March 2026, the Kerala High Court delivered two connected judgments in RSA No. 64 of 2017 and RSA No. 656 of 2022 with connected appeals, bringing a major legal turning point in the long running dispute over endogamy, church membership, Vivahakuri, sacramental access, and the status of spouses and children within the Knanaya Catholic community. These judgments arise from a struggle that began with Biju Uthup’s case in 1989 and later expanded into the wider KCNS litigation, which raised broader questions of membership, exclusion, and constitutional rights.

Background

The earlier case, O.S. No. 923 of 1989, was filed by Biju Uthup seeking a direction to issue Vivahakuri, the certificate required for betrothal and marriage in the Church. His case was that he and his family had long been acknowledged as members of the Knanaya Catholic community and parishioners of Holy Family Parish Church, Nattassery, and that denial of Vivahakuri was unlawful. The High Court records that this litigation passed through multiple stages over many years, including dismissal, review, restoration by the Supreme Court, and final rehearing.

The later and broader case, commonly referred to as the KCNS case, arose from O.S. No. 106 of 2015 and questioned whether endogamy could be enforced in a way that deprived members of church membership, marriage related rights, and recognition of their families. That dispute eventually reached the High Court in RSA No. 656 of 2022 and connected cases, which were decided together on 23 March 2026.

What the High Court held

The High Court held that the defendants failed to establish endogamy as a valid custom and also failed to show that it is an essential religious practice protected from judicial scrutiny. The Court further held that refusal to follow endogamy cannot be used as a lawful basis for expulsion, forced exclusion, or denial of rights flowing from recognised membership.

The Court also held that a member who marries a Catholic from another diocese cannot be forced to relinquish membership, and that existing membership cannot be taken away merely because of marriage. It recognised that rights under Article 25 may be enforced even where the alleged violation comes from a non state actor, and it rejected attempts to use internal by laws to control persons who already possess membership by birth.

In one of the most important findings, the Court held that the spouse of a Knanaya member and the children born to them can aspire for membership, particularly because failure to practise endogamy cannot deprive the original member of his or her rights. This gives the ruling significance beyond marriage ceremony alone and extends it to family recognition and dignity.

Importance of RSA No. 64 of 2017

In RSA No. 64 of 2017, the High Court upheld the finding that Biju Uthup, his parents, and his family members were recognised members of the Knanaya Catholic community and parishioners of Holy Family Parish Church, Nattassery, and that the defendants were obliged to issue Vivahakuri. The judgment confirms that denial of Vivahakuri is not merely an internal matter but a civil wrong affecting enforceable rights.

The judgment also makes an important observation on delay, describing the case as one where valuable rights were kept in limbo through delaying tactics. For that reason, the decision is significant not only as legal relief to Biju Uthup and his family, but also as recognition of the long injustice caused by prolonged litigation.

Importance of the KCNS case

The connected KCNS judgment transforms what had often been treated as isolated personal grievances into a broader legal principle. It makes clear that marriage choice cannot lawfully be punished through denial of membership, sacramental access, or family recognition. It also reinforces that constitutional rights and civil remedies remain available where exclusionary religious practices affect civil consequences.

The briefing documents also record that Justin John played a role in pushing the matter toward final hearing by seeking early posting of the KCNS case, while Biju Uthup also pursued early hearing efforts in the connected RSA 64 matter. These efforts helped bring both connected disputes to final adjudication.

Present status

As of 27 March 2026, the Kerala High Court has delivered its final judgments in RSA No. 64 of 2017 and RSA No. 656 of 2022 with connected appeals, all dated 23 March 2026. Based on the documents provided here, the High Court has upheld the rights asserted in relation to Vivahakuri, membership, sacramental access, and recognition of spouse and children, while rejecting endogamy as a legally enforceable basis for exclusion. The uploaded briefing and press documents describe the appeals as dismissed with costs, and no later appellate order is contained in the materials you shared.

Why this matters

These judgments are important not only because they resolve long standing litigation, but because they establish a broader principle: membership and dignity cannot be taken away on the ground of marriage outside the community. They affirm that individual autonomy, family recognition, and access to church related civil rights cannot be defeated by later claims of custom that do not withstand legal scrutiny. In that sense, the outcome marks both the vindication of a decades long personal struggle and a wider protection for future generations.

Ernakulam, 6th February 2025: In a significant development that could reshape Contempt of Court Case No. 1936/2023, Jestin John received a key letter today from the parish priest of St. Xavier’s Church, the parish of his fiancée Vijimol. The letter, dated 5th February 2025, confirms that the St. Xavier’s parish priest has no authority over Jestin John’s marriage and that the responsibility rests solely with Jestin’s parish priest.

This confirmation fundamentally alters Jestin’s legal approach. Previously, Jestin had pursued the Vivaha Kuri in Form ‘C’ from his parish to avoid the perceived embarrassment within the Knanaya community and his parish, stemming from internal disputes and tensions regarding his marriage. The embarrassment was associated with conducting the marriage at his home parish, which is traditionally known for conducting endogamous marriages within the community, based on alleged notions of blood purity. However, today’s letter clarifies that there is no alternative but for Jestin’s parish to conduct the wedding, making the issuance of the ‘C’ Kuri irrelevant moving forward.

A Major Turning Point: No Longer a Need for ‘C’ Kuri
With the contempt case likely to be reopened next week and today’s letter in hand, Jestin’s legal team is likely to shift their focus entirely to compelling his parish priest to conduct the wedding as required by the Annexure A1 interim order under RSA No. 656/2022. The initial plan to obtain the ‘C’ Kuri was meant to circumvent objections within the Knanaya community and avoid the (now deemed non-existent) embarrassment tied to marrying outside traditional endogamous practices.

However, today’s letter confirms that the St. Xavier’s parish cannot be involved, making it clear that Jestin’s parish must fulfill its obligations without further obstruction. Jestin’s legal team, led by Adv. M.A. Hanis, is expected to argue that the denial of the marriage by Jestin’s parish constitutes a direct violation of the court’s orders and should be treated as contempt.

Blow to Associations That Previously Supported Jestin
Today’s development is another setback for the associations and advocates who initially supported Jestin during the early stages of the contempt case but later abandoned him after the case was dismissed on 03.09.2024. These groups had maintained that no further legal remedies were possible, focusing instead on protecting Archbishop Mathew Moolakkatt from facing contempt of court charges. This stance, widely seen as a compromise to safeguard the church leadership, has now come under scrutiny as new evidence has emerged reinforcing Jestin’s claim of non-compliance with the court’s directives.

Jestin has also accused Senior Advocate Suresh Kumar, who represented him during the original contempt proceedings, of misleading legal strategies that ultimately favored the church leadership. Legal experts believe today’s development further validates Jestin’s suspicion that the original case was dismissed to shield the church leadership, not to deliver justice.

Implications for the Upcoming Hearing
With the contempt case likely to be reopened next week and today’s letter in hand, Jestin’s legal team is expected to argue that:

St. Xavier’s Church’s confirmation of its lack of authority over the marriage leaves Jestin’s parish solely responsible for conducting the wedding. The refusal of Jestin’s parish to conduct the wedding constitutes contempt, as it directly violates the court’s interim order. The dismissal of the original case was a result of legal misrepresentation and selective compliance, which should be reconsidered in light of the new evidence.

Public and Media Scrutiny Intensifies
Today’s revelation is likely to spark renewed public interest, with journalists closely monitoring its impact on Jestin’s case and other related legal battles. The outcome of the hearing next week could have major implications not only for Jestin’s case but also for the ongoing Biju Uthup case (RSA 64 of 2017) and the Knanaya case (RSA 656 of 2022). Both cases involve key issues related to church obligations, membership, and marriage regulations. The Knanaya case (RSA 656 of 2022) is due for a hearing this month, and Jestin has joined the case as a respondent, as his marriage issue remains unresolved.

The exact date of the hearing for Jestin’s contempt case is expected to be announced shortly.

Stay tuned for further updates as this high-profile case unfolds.

Ernakulam: In a major legal development, the Kerala High Court today, 3rd February 2025, reopened Contempt of Court Case No. 1936/2023, admitting it for further hearing next week. The case, originally filed by Jestin John against Mar Mathew Moolakkatt, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Archeparchy of Kottayam, and Stijo Stephen, parish priest of St. Anne’s Parish Church, centers on the alleged non-compliance with Annexure A1, the interim order issued as part of RSA No. 656/2022 (KCNS case).

The exact date for the hearing will be announced by this evening, but legal experts are already calling the court’s decision to reopen the case a potential turning point in Jestin’s prolonged legal battle for justice.

A Major Blow to Jestin’s Former Legal Team
The reopening of the contempt case deals a significant blow to the legal team that previously handled Jestin’s case, particularly Senior Advocate Suresh Kumar, whose role in the earlier proceedings has now come under scrutiny. Jestin had approached Suresh Kumar to assist him in reopening the case, but the senior advocate allegedly refused to meet him or engage in discussions about pursuing further legal remedies.

Adding to the controversy, the associations and advocates who previously supported Jestin during the initial contempt proceedings have now abandoned him, citing the dismissal of the case as final and claiming that nothing further could be done. This sudden lack of support has fueled speculation of alleged efforts to protect Archbishop Mathew Moolakkatt, rather than securing justice for Jestin. Critics argue that the focus of certain legal teams seemed more aligned with safeguarding the church’s leadership from contempt charges than ensuring Jestin’s grievances were addressed.

Allegations of Legal Collusion
The decision to reopen the case could shed light on the suspected collusion between Jestin’s former advocate, Adv. Suresh Kumar, and the legal representatives of the church. Jestin has consistently alleged that Suresh Kumar’s handling of the case contributed to its premature dismissal, preventing him from obtaining the necessary church documents for his marriage. This doubt has also extended to Suresh Kumar’s involvement in RSA No. 656/2022, where some believe his legal strategy may have favored protecting the church over securing a favorable outcome for Jestin.

Background of the Case
The case revolves around the Annexure A1 interim order, which directed the church authorities to issue all necessary documents, including the Vivaha Kuri in Form ‘C’, to Jestin without imposing conditions such as relinquishing his church membership. While a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued on 02.09.2024, Jestin contends that the denial of the Vivaha Kuri has effectively blocked his ability to solemnize his marriage.

Represented by his new legal counsel, Adv. M.A. Hanis, Jestin filed the application to reopen the case, arguing that the refusal to issue the Vivaha Kuri is a willful violation of the court’s interim order and constitutes contempt.

Court’s Decision: What Lies Ahead?
The court’s decision to reopen the case sets the stage for a highly anticipated hearing next week, where the respondents could face legal consequences if found guilty of contempt. Legal experts believe the court’s willingness to revisit the case signals the seriousness of Jestin’s allegations and may prompt an investigation into the conduct of all parties involved, including his former legal team.

Jestin’s Allegations Against Church Authorities
Jestin has accused the respondents of creating an illusion of cooperation by issuing the NOC while deliberately withholding the Vivaha Kuri, misleading both him and the Kerala High Court. He further claims that this tactic was designed to protect the church’s leadership from contempt charges while violating his fundamental rights.

Public and Media Interest Intensifies
The court’s decision to reopen the case has sparked intense media interest, with legal experts and journalists closely monitoring the developments. The potential legal and reputational impact on the church and its leadership has raised questions about judicial accountability and compliance in cases involving religious institutions.

The outcome of the hearing next week could have significant implications for the church’s obligations under the law and for Jestin’s personal battle for justice.

Stay tuned for updates as the exact date of the hearing is expected to be announced later today.

Ernakulam: In a high-stakes legal battle that has drawn significant public attention, the Kerala High Court will tomorrow (03-02-2025) decide whether to reopen Contempt of Court Case No. 1936/2023, originally filed by Jestin John against Mar Mathew Moolakkatt, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Archeparchy of Kottayam, and Stijo Stephen, parish priest of St. Anne’s Parish Church. At the heart of the controversy is the alleged violation of Annexure A1, the interim order issued in connection with RSA No. 656/2022
.
The court’s decision tomorrow will determine whether the dismissed contempt case will be readmitted for further proceedings. Jestin claims that despite the case being closed on 03.09.2024 based on the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC), the respondents failed to fully comply with the court’s directives. The crux of the dispute is the non-issuance of the Vivaha Kuri in Form ‘C’, a vital church document required to solemnize his marriage.

Allegations of Legal Misconduct and Collusion

Jestin has raised serious allegations of suspected collusion between his former advocate, Adv. Suresh Kumar, and the legal representatives of the respondents. He accuses the advocates representing the church of misleading the court to protect the respondents, particularly Archbishop Moolakkatt, from contempt charges. Jestin believes this manipulation led to the premature dismissal of the case, leaving him without any resolution to his marriage-related dispute.

"I trusted my advocate, but I now suspect he acted against my best interests," Jestin stated. He further revealed that his former advocate denied him sufficient audience and discouraged him from discussing crucial case details. "Instead of listening to me, he directed me to a Supreme Court advocate working in the background," Jestin added, expressing frustration over the lack of transparency.

Background of the Case

The issue stems from the Annexure A1 interim order, issued in relation to RSA No. 656/2022 (the KCNS case), which required the church authorities to provide Jestin with all necessary documents to facilitate his marriage without imposing additional conditions, such as relinquishing his church membership.

While the respondents issued a No Objection Certificate on 02.09.2024, Jestin asserts that they willfully withheld the Vivaha Kuri in Form ‘C’. Without this document, his marriage cannot be solemnized, and he contends that this selective compliance amounts to deliberate contempt of court orders.

To address this issue, Jestin’s new legal counsel, Adv. M.A. Hanis, filed an application to reopen the dismissed contempt case. The plea argues that the refusal to issue the Vivaha Kuri is a blatant and willful violation of the court’s order and calls for the court’s intervention to ensure compliance.

What’s at Stake

This case holds significant consequences for both parties. If the court agrees to reopen the case, the respondents could face serious legal repercussions, including contempt proceedings. On the other hand, if the court denies the plea, Jestin’s path to legal relief may face further delays, prolonging the emotional and legal toll on him.

A successful reopening could not only compel the church to issue the required documents but also expose potential legal misconduct by those involved in the original dismissal of the case. Legal experts believe the decision could set a precedent for handling contempt cases involving religious institutions and their compliance with judicial orders.

Jestin’s Allegations Against Church Authorities

Jestin accuses the respondents of selectively complying with the court’s interim order to create an illusion of cooperation, while strategically withholding the most critical document needed for his marriage. He asserts that this selective compliance misled the Kerala High Court during the earlier proceedings, leading to the premature dismissal of the case.

"Their conduct is a blatant disregard for the court’s directive and an attempt to evade accountability," Jestin emphasized. "This isn’t just a personal battle for me—it’s about ensuring the judiciary’s authority is respected."

Tomorrow’s Verdict: Will Justice Prevail?

As the Kerala High Court prepares to hear the reopening plea, legal experts are divided on the outcome. Some argue that Jestin’s allegations of misconduct and selective compliance warrant a full investigation, while others caution that reopening a previously dismissed contempt case requires strong legal grounds.
If the reopening is granted, it could force the respondents to comply fully with the interim order and address allegations of legal manipulation. Jestin has also sought permission to be listed as a respondent in the original KCNS case, further underscoring the seriousness of his battle for justice.

A Case That Could Spark Widespread Debate

Journalists and legal observers are closely monitoring this case, given its potential to trigger widespread debate about the intersection of faith, law, and individual rights in Kerala. The allegations of church authorities misleading the court and the suspicion of legal collusion have only added to the public interest surrounding tomorrow’s verdict.

Will the Kerala High Court recognize Jestin’s plea and reopen the case, or will the respondents walk away unscathed again? The outcome of tomorrow’s hearing could set the stage for a major confrontation between religious institutions and judicial authority in Kerala’s legal history.

Stay tuned for real-time updates as the court delivers its crucial decision tomorrow.

Case Status Update: Justin John Contempt of Court Hearing - 19th August 2023
Case Title: Concase(c) 1936 of 2023 - Justin John vs. Archbishop Mathew Moolakatt
Hearing Date: 19th August 2023
Location: Kerala High Court
Presiding Judge: Justice Hakhim

Latest Developments:

This morning, the Kerala High Court resumed hearings in the contempt of court case involving Justin John and Archbishop Mathew Moolakatt. In a significant development, the Archbishop’s advocate agreed to issue the Vivaha Kuri to Justin John. The court has directed that the Vivaha Kuri be presented on Wednesday, 21st August.

During the hearing, Justice Hakhim cautioned the Archbishop’s advocate against creating any unpleasant situations, particularly given the Archbishop’s role as a religious leader. The judge stressed that there should be no refusal on the part of the Bishop to issue the Vivaha Kuri.

The next hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, 22nd August, as indicated on the Keral High Court portal, where it is anticipated that the Vivaha Kuri is to be submitted to the court.

Next Steps:
We will provide further updates following the hearing on 21st August.

Briefing on Case Status – October 10, 2024
By Biju Uthup

I would like to provide a detailed update on the ongoing proceedings concerning RSA 64 of 2017 and RSA 656 of 2022, along with other connected cases, following the High Court hearing on October 10, 2024.

Background of RSA 64 of 2017:

The primary objective of the rehearing in RSA 64 of 2017 is to address the procedural error identified by the Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) Nos. 25260-25261/2018, dated October 1, 2018. This error stems from the concurrent pronouncement of the review order (RP 450 of 2017) and the amended judgment on the same day—March 14, 2018—which the Supreme Court found procedurally improper. The Supreme Court directed a rehearing to ensure that the case is handled in full accordance with due processsupreme_court_judgment: https://www.knanayareform.com/static/civilcourt/supreme_court_judgment_of_1st_october_2018_1.pdf

It is crucial to emphasize that RSA 64 of 2017 serves as the main case for expediting and unifying all matters related to endogamy. Without this case, the hearing of the other connected cases would not have taken place. This long-pending case is historic as it marks the first legal challenge against the practice of endogamy. Due credit should be given to it for its role in summoning all concerned parties so that a final verdict on this critical issue can be brought forth.

Connected Cases:

The following cases are connected and were heard together:
1. RSA 64 of 2017 (Between myself and Archbishop Mathew Moolakatt)
2. RSA 656 of 2022 (In which I am Respondent No. 13)
3. RSA 675 of 2022
4. RSA 725 of 2022
5. RSA 23 of 2023
With the hearing on October 10, 2024, and the High Court's order on the same day, all these cases are now formally connected. The Honourable Judge instructed all parties to pay any outstanding court fees and ensure the cases are ready for the initiation of the hearings. The next hearing date has been fixed for November 12, 2024
(High court order dated 10th November 2024) https://www.knanayareform.com/static/civilcourt/high_court_order_for_rsa_656_of_2022_&_rsa_64_of_2017_1.pdf
________________________________________

Summary of Proceedings – October 10, 2024:

1. Counsel’s Representation: My counsel presented that the case RSA 64 of 2017 had already been posted for further hearing, indicating that the High Court is actively addressing the case
2. Judge’s Acknowledgment: The Honourable Judge confirmed that RSA 656 of 2022 is also allowed to be heard, and all connected cases will be handled together to streamline proceedings.
3. Gathering of Trial Court Records: The Judge emphasized the need to gather all relevant trial court records, which is essential to move forward with the hearing. This will ensure that all facts and evidence are properly considered.
4. Serving of Notices: The appellants, led by Archbishop Mathew Moolakatt and the Archeparchy of Kottayam, were directed to serve notice to all respondents across the connected cases before the trial proceeds. This is a crucial step to maintain fairness and transparency in the process.
5. Reference to Supreme Court Directions: The Honourable Judge also referenced the Supreme Court's order of October 1, 2018, which instructed the High Court to expedite the disposal of RSA 64 of 2017. This reinforces the urgency of resolving the case efficiently and fairly.
________________________________________

Respondents in RSA 64 of 2017 & RSA 656 of 2022:

• Respondent 1: Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy, Kumarakom, represented by its President
• Respondent 2: T.O. Joseph, Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha
• Respondent 3: Lukose Mathew K., Kurichithanam, Kottayam
• Respondent 4: C.R. Punnen, Kottayam (Represented by his Power of Attorney Holder V.C. Mathai)
• Respondent 5: Major Archbishop George Cardinal Alencherry, Syro Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church, Kochi
• Respondent 6: Synod of the Syro Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church, Kochi
• Respondent 7: Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Rome, Italy
• Respondent 8: Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Rome, Italy
• Respondent 9: Knanaya Catholic Congress, Kottayam, represented by its President Stephen George
• Respondent 10: Johny Kuruvilla, Thiruvananthapuram
• Respondent 11: Dominic Savio, Idukki District
• Respondent 12: Benny Jacob, Idukki District
• Respondent 13: Biju Uthup, Bangalore (Myself)
• Respondent 14: James Joseph K., Kottayam
• Respondent 15: Knanaya Royal Community, represented by Managing Trustee Jose Thomas
• Respondent 16: Joyan P. Saimon, Kumarakom
• Respondent 17: Tobin George, Kumarakom
• Respondent 18: Philu Thomas, Bangalore
• Respondent 19: Alex J. Victor, Bangalore
• Respondent 20: Siby Jose, Bangalore
• Respondent 21: Sunny Kuruvilla, Bangalore
• Respondent 22: Roby K. Kunjoonju, Bangalore
• Respondent 23: Cyriac Thomas, Bangalore
• Respondent 24: Reji C. Joseph, Bangalore
• Respondent 25: Cyriac Joseph, Bangalore
• Respondent 26: Joji George, Bangalore
• Respondent 27: Santhosh Simon, Bangalore
• Respondent 28: Sibimon Jose, Bangalore
• Respondent 29: Tibin Thomas, Secretary, Knanaya Global Parliament, Kottayam
• Respondent 30: Knanaya Samudaya Samrakshana Samithi, represented by its President Abraham Naduvathara, Thiruvananthapuram
• Respondent 31: Lambochan Mathew, Kottayam
• Respondent 32: Jose Mathew, Kottayam
• Respondent 33: Philip Chacko, Kottayam
• Respondent 34: Knanaya Catholic Congress, Kottayam, represented by its President Thomas K.L.
• Respondent 35: Thomas Vattakkalam, Idukki District
• Respondent 36: Jose M.J., Delhi (represented by Power of Attorney Holder Thomas Vattakkalam)
• Respondent 37: Tomy Thomas, USA (represented by Power of Attorney Holder Shaju John)
• Respondent 38: Joy Mathew, USA (represented by Power of Attorney Holder Shaju John)
• Respondent 39: Sonny Joseph, Canada (represented by Power of Attorney Holder Thomas Vattakkalam)
• Respondent 40: Jimmi Cherian, UK (represented by Power of Attorney Holder Stanley Kurian)
• Respondent 41: Soban Thomas, Australia (represented by Power of Attorney Holder Shaju John)
• Respondent 42: Shibu Paul, Italy (represented by Power of Attorney Holder Stanley Kurian)
• Respondent 43: Fr. Byju Mathew alias Byju Mukalel, Kottayam
• Respondent 44: Chacko Thekkedath Joseph, Idukki District
• Respondent 45: Lukose P.U., USA

________________________________________
Conclusion:

During the hearing on October 10, 2024, the court focused on the procedural readiness of all connected cases. The Honourable Judge confirmed the connection of RSA 64 of 2017 with other related cases and emphasized the need for all parties to ensure that trial court records are gathered and outstanding court fees paid. The next hearing date has been set for November 12, 2024. This hearing represents a critical step in advancing the resolution of the matters at hand.
________________________________________


Biju Uthup
Oravanakalam House
Bangalore

The Bishops Advocate today morning submitted the draft NOC to the court stating that they have no Objection for Justingn marriage to be conducted, however the decision of his membership will be decided by the KCNS case final verdict. Judge agreed and posted the matter for hearing at 1.45 pm today itself. Justin's advocate stated that they would prefer to hear the case even before 1.30 pm. This is the status of the case in the morning.

Later At 11.45am the proceedings continued and Advocate of Justin handed over the vivaha kuri to Justin's Advocte. The copy of the NOC is attached for all members to see Exclussively.

Case Status Update: Justin John Contempt of Court Case

Next Hearing: Tuesday, 3rd September

During the latest hearing, the Bishop's advocate requested a brief postponement, which the judge accepted, scheduling the next hearing for Tuesday, 3rd September—just two working days later. This swift rescheduling is a relief for Justin, as it ensures the case progresses without unnecessary delays.

Importantly, the Bishop and his legal team remain under pressure to issue the Vivaha Kuri to Justin as ordered, or face contempt of court proceedings. While minor postponements are common in the legal system, the short interval between hearings underscores the urgency of compliance. There is no room for the Bishop’s side to evade this responsibility, and all efforts are focused on resolving this matter promptly.

Please continue to stay informed and united as we approach the next steps in this important case.

Case was heard on 23rd August. It was an initail hearing. Judge said that this case will be heard only after Justin's contempt of Court is completed only. All Advocates identified themselves for petitioners and respondents. The Judge called for the trial court records to this court. THe case is now posted after Onam Holidays on r 25th Septembe as indcated in the High Court Case statuys as shown below.

Case adjourned for hearing again on 30th August 2024. On that day a draft Vivahakuri or NOC to conduct Justin's wedding will be handed over to the court and Justin's advocate may be able to include necessary correction required. Based on that Justin can then decide to go for his wedding in the church of his choise. This is a good news for Justin today.

Case Status Update: Justin John Contempt of Court Hearing - 2nd August 2023
Case Title: Concase(c) 1936 of 2023 - Justin John vs. Archbishop Mathew Moolakatt
Hearing Date: 2nd August 2023
Location: Kerala High Court
Presiding Judge: Justice Hakhim

Summary of Proceedings:

During the hearing on 2nd August 2023, the Kerala High Court examined the contempt of court case brought by Justin John against Archbishop Mathew Moolakatt. The primary focus was on whether the Archbishop had committed contempt by not issuing a Vivaha Kuri to Justin John, despite an earlier engagement and registration of marriage.

Key Arguments:

The Archbishop’s counsel, Senior Advocate P.B. Krishnan, argued that Justin John’s membership in the Kottayam Diocese had not been terminated, and thus, no contempt had occurred. He also claimed that since Justin had registered his marriage independently without the church’s involvement, there was no further need for the Archbishop’s approval.

Justice Hakhim rejected these arguments, pointing out that the minor procedural issue of not approaching the church after the engagement should not prevent the issuance of the Vivaha Kuri. The judge warned that failure to provide the Vivaha Kuri could result in contempt of court actions against the Archbishop.

Next Steps:
The court has scheduled the next hearing for 19th August 2024. By this time, the Archbishop must either issue the Vivaha Kuri to Justin John or face potential contempt proceedings.