1. Habeas corpus petition challenging the dismissal of a marriage's validity solemnized under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment). (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1158
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Ilavarasan - Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent Of Police & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2752 Of 2023 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 6534 Of 2023)
Decided On : 28-08-2023
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A Velan, AOR, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Mritunjay Pathak, Adv.
For the Respondents: Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR.
For the Appellant : Mr. A Velan, AOR, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Mritunjay Pathak, Adv.
For the Respondents: Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR.
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that marriages under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment) do not require public solemnization or declaration to be valid. Imposing such a requirement would narrow the statute's scope and violate the right to free choice under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Subject
Civil Law - Family Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act allows marriages to be solemnized in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons without the need for a public declaration. The Court analyzed this provision and held that the requirement of a public declaration is not necessary and can be impractical or dangerous in certain situations. The Court also referred to the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act and other provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act that support the validity of marriages solemnized under Section 7A. The Court emphasized the right of individuals to exercise free choice in marriage, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a habeas corpus proceeding alleging that the respondent was forcibly married to her maternal uncle and restrained against her will. The High Court dismissed the petition and made adverse comments about the conduct of Advocates. The appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the District Legal Services Authority to record the statement of the alleged victim, who confirmed that she married the appellant of her own free will. The Court ordered the respondents to ensure that she joins the appellant. However, the Court noticed that the High Court followed a previous decision that required a public declaration for a valid marriage. The Court held that such a view is erroneous and overruled the previous decision. The Court also noted that advocates should not solemnize marriages but can act as witnesses in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows marriages to be solemnized in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons without the need for a public declaration. The Court held that the requirement of a public declaration is not necessary and can be impractical or dangerous in certain situations. The Court emphasized the right of individuals to exercise free choice in marriage, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also addressed the concerns about the role of advocates in solemnizing marriages, stating that they should not undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages but can act as witnesses in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of a public declaration for a valid marriage under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act is erroneous and violative of the right to free choice in marriage protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Advocates should not solemnize marriages but can act as witnesses in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses.
Result: The appeal is allowed and the respondents are directed to ensure that the alleged victim joins the appellant. The previous decision requiring a public declaration for a valid marriage is overruled. Advocates should not solemnize marriages but can act as witnesses in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether marriages under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act must be solemnized publicly to be valid, as opposed to ceremonies conducted in secrecy. (Para 6 )
3. Requiring public declaration for marriages under Section 7A ignores social pressures and violates the right to free choice under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 8 )
4. Marriages under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act do not require public solemnization; the right to free choice is intrinsic to the right to life. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; respondents directed to ensure the spouse joins the appellant. (Para 4 , 10 )
6. Does a marriage solemnized under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment) require public celebration to be valid?
No. The court held that requiring public solemnization is erroneous and narrows the statute. Marriages are valid if solemnized in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons through simple ceremonies such as garlanding, tying a thali, or exchanging rings. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. How does the requirement of public declaration in marriages impact constitutional rights?
Superimposing a condition of public declaration on marriages where adults exercise free will can violate Article 21 of the Constitution, as the right of individuals to exercise free choice is an intrinsic part of the right to life. (Para 8 )
8. Can advocates solemnize marriages in their professional capacity?
Advocates should not undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages while acting as counsel or in their professional capacity to prevent their offices from becoming matrimonial establishments, although they may act as witnesses in their capacity as friends or relatives. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT :
(S. Ravindra Bhat, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, with their consent.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant had preferred a habeas corpus proceeding, alleging that he had married Mathithra in accordance with Section 7A of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same was solemnized under the aegis of Advocates and other social workers. He had alleged that she had been forcibly taken away, coerced into marrying her maternal uncle, after which she was restrained at the behest of her parents. The appellant alleged that Mathithra was detained or restrained against her will. The High Court dismissed the petition and recorded comments adverse to the conduct of Advocates, stating that they are incapable of certifying marriages under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu). The appellant, aggrieved by the impugned order, has approached this Court.
3. This Court had by its order dated 04.08.2023 directed that the concerned District Legal Services Authority to facilitate recording the statement of the alleged victim, Mathithra. Pursuant to the directions, the concerned Legal Services Authority and the District Judge, Ramanathapuram facilitated the process. The report furnished by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu was forwarded by the District Judge, through letter dated 12.08.2023. The report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority pertinently states as follows:
“I humbly submit that, I examined the alleged victim Mathithra with the assistance of Lady Judicial Magistrate. From my examination it reveals that, alleged victim Mathithra married one Elavarasan S/o. Vellaidurai, on her own will and she is residing with the said Elavarasan at Madurai, Othakadai, Anubunagar on her own volition. Further my examination reveals that, she was earlier married to her maternal uncle Thiru. Vijayan at the age of sixteen, against her wishes and she was compelled by her parents and relatives to live with him. Now the alleged victim wants to reside with Elavarasan at later’s residence at Door no. 221, North street, Morpannai, Uppur, Ramanathapuram District.”
4. A copy as well as the translated copy of the statement of Mathithra recorded by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been placed on the record. It confirms the report. In the light of these developments, the Court is satisfied that Mathithra, in fact, wishes to reside with the appellant of own freewill. The respondents are directed to ensure that she in fact join the appellant.
5. The above would have been dispositive of these proceedings. However, this Court notices that the High Court in the impugned order-followed a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench reported as “S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan v Inspector of Police” 2014 (7) MadLJ 651.
6. The Madras High Court took note of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act and the Hindu Marriage Act, especially Section 7A which dispensed with the necessity of solemnizing marriage in terms of the forms enumerated in other provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and described a special procedure under the newly inserted provision (Section 7A). That provision merely required the intending spouses to declare and express to each other their willingness to take each other as spouses and symbolically garlanding each other and tying a “Thali”. The Court interpreted the procedure of declaration by the intending spouses “in the presence of relatives, friends or other persons”. The High Court was of the opinion that such marriages involved a public declaration:
“We are very clear in our mind that even the protagonists of the Suyammariyathai/Seerthiruththa form of marriage did not visualize marriages being solemnized in secrecy. The very idea of performing marriages with celebration is to publicly declare the marital status of the parties. Even Thanthai Periyar used to conduct Suyamariyathai form of marriages publicl
