Denial of registration of marriage of a foreign national amounts to violation of Right to Equality (Article-14). The respondents cannot refuse to register the marriage of the petitioners only on the ground that one of the couples is not a citizen of India.

ORDER :

1. In Ancient Mythology, it was believed worldwide that “Marriages are made in Heaven, but celebrated on Earth, Unity of two unknown souls, written right from birth.”

2. The above idiom means that “the fate or destiny of whom one marry is decided by a High Power, such as God, and not by human choice or action.” It is often used to express the belief that marriage is a sacred and divine institution and that married couples have a special bond that transcends earthly matters. Marriage is often regarded as a sacred bond, holds a unique significance in culture, echoing the age-old belief that certain unions are made in Heaven.

3. Marriages are pious knots in which two people are tied, not only physically but also emotionally, mentally and psychologically. Marriage is a legal formality or a sort of accord between two people, who agree to take care of each other. In other words, the act of marriage can be put as development of relationship which brings together two people, two souls, two families, two tribes and two races.

4. Marriage is the process through which two people make their relationship public, official and permanent. It joins two people in a bond that putatively lasts until death.

5. The petitioners are claiming themselves a Hindu married couple and petitioner No.1 is a resident of India, while the petitioner No.2 is a resident of Belgium. Both are seeking direction of this Court to Registrar of Marriage to register their marriage and issue a marriage certificate to them. The Registrar has refused to register their marriage by observing that their marriage cannot be registered because the petitioner No.2 is a Foreign National and he is not a resident of India. Now, the issue in this petition is “Whether the Registrar of Marriage can refuse to register a marriage only on the ground that one person of the couple is not citizen of India?” The other issue involved in this petition is “Whether denial of registration of a foreign national, who solemnized marriage in India amounts to violation of his right of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India?” It is in this background, the issues involved in this petition are required to be considered.

6. The factual matrix of the case, as per the contents of the writ petition is that the petitioner No.1 is a resident of India, while the petitioner No.2 is a resident of Belgium and is a frequent traveller in India. Both the petitioners are claiming themselves as Hindu and as per their claim, they have performed marriage as per the Hindu rites and rituals, as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”) on 18.01.2010. As per the contents of the petition, Arya Samaj, Ajmer has issued a certificate in this regard and thereafter, they submitted an application on 20.01.2010 before the Registrar of Marriage for getting their marriage registered and obtaining a marriage certificate but the Registrar refused to register their marriage orally, on the ground that one of the petitioners i.e. the husband is a foreigner and is not a citizen of India. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court by way of invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court:-

1. May be pleased to direct the respondents to register the marriage of the petitioners.

2. Cost of the petition may be quantified in favour of the petitioner.

3. Any other relief and direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may be granted.”

7. The respondents have submitted a very short reply with regard to the maintainability of the petition only on the ground of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2009 (for short “the Act of 2009”). The sole objection of the respondents in their r