V.M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 2.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by respondent No. 2, order dated 29.04.2016 passed by respondent No. 1 and the order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Junagadh, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017. The petitioners also prayed that direction be given to respondent No. 2 to register their marriage under the provisions of the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2006").

3. Heard Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No. 2.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 2 is a citizen of Pakistan and she has been granted permission to reside in Gujarat. The marriage of petitioner No. 2 was solemnized with petitioner No. 1, who is a resident of Junagadh. The marriage had taken place on 07.12.2007 as per the Muslim rituals and customs at Junagadh. Learned advocate has referred copies of the Marriage Affidavit, Birth Certificates and relevant documents annexed with the petition. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are residing together along with their children i.e. son aged about 8 years and daughter aged about 18 months.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Raval further submits that the petitioners submitted an application on 08.02.2016 for registration of their marriage under the provisions of the Act of 2006 before respondent No. 2. However, respondent No. 2 rejected the said application on the ground that as per the evidence produced by the petitioners on the date of their marriage, petitioner No. 2 had not completed 18 years of age and petitioner No. 2 has not produced Ration Card, Aadhar Card or Election Card. It is submitted that aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 2 was challenged by filing an appeal before respondent No. 1. However, respondent No. 1 has also dismissed the appeal. The petitioners, therefore, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017 before the concerned District Court. However, 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Junagadh, dismissed the said appeal. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Raval assailed the aforesaid orders mainly on the ground that as per the Mohammedan Law, more particularly, Article 251, every Mohammedan of sound mind, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage. It is further submitted that Explanation of Article 251 further provides that puberty is presumed, in the absence of evidence, on completion of the age of 15 years. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner No. 2 had completed 16 years and 10 months i.e. more than 15 years and, therefore, as per the Mohammedan Law, the marriage of the petitioners is a valid marriage.

4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Raval, thereafter, referred the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act of 2006 and submitted that the Registrar can refuse the registration of marriage, if he is satisfied or has reason to believe that the marriage between the parties is not performed in accordance with the personal law of the parties. In the present case, marriage between the parties is performed in accordance with the personal law and, therefore, respondent No. 2 has wrongly rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that petitioner No. 2 has not completed 18 years of age on the date of the marriage.

4.4 It is further contended that as petitioner No. 2 is a citizen of Pakistan and is granted permission to re