Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. RAJESWARAN & P.N. PRAKASH, JJ.
S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan & Another
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District & Others
HCP Nos. 2767 of 2013 & 2141 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014
Decided on: 17-10-2014
Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act, 2009 - Advocates Act – Section 35 - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 7A - Marriage Certificate - Claim of marriage – Jurisdiction - On strength of Marriage Certificate produced by petitioner court were routinely issuing Rule Nisi for production of detente in order to check if she was in illegal custody of her parents - In several cases court found detune when produced before us telling that she has not undergone any solemnization of marriage with petitioner and even repudiated very Certificate of Marriage as a bogus one – Petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he hails from District and had fallen in love and that they got married at Temple and that marriage was registered under Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act, 2009 with Registrar of Marriages, North on same day - Court issued notice to respondents and directed production - Appeared before and told us that though she knew petitioner she had not married him at all and Marriage Certificate that was produced in support of claim of marriage has been obtained without her knowledge and consent - On carefully scrutinizing Marriage Certificate court found that place of solemnization of marriage has been given as Street, whereas in affidavit of petitioner he has stated that he got married in Temple and not anywhere near address given in Marriage Certificate - All this aroused strong suspicion in court mind and therefore court passed a detailed order relevant portion of which is extracted – Held, Court declaration of law that marriages performed in secrecy in Office of Advocates and Bar Association Rooms cannot amount to solemnization within meaning of Sections 7 and 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be used as a sword by males for cutting nuptial knot in matrimonial proceedings but can be used only by fair sex to get liberated from sham marriages of this nature - Court also hold that Certificate of Solemnization issued by Advocates will not be per se proof of Solemnization of Marriage in a matrimonial dispute - Coming to propriety of Advocates going to the Registration Office and presenting the Memorandum of Registration of Marriages submitted that there is no bar for Advocates to present papers for Registration and he drew parallels by citing practice of Advocates presenting documents like sale deed etc for registration before Registration Officials - Court are unable to agree with this submission of counsel - Under Tamil Nadu Document Writers License Rules, 1982 all non-testamentary documents should have to be prepared only by a Document Writer licensed in this behalf and it shall be duly attested by him with his full name and license number - An Advocate before registering a marriage issues a Solemnization Certificate in his capacity as Priest as defined by Section 2(e) of Act - Neither Act nor Rules insist upon presence of Priest during Registration - Scope of Registration is to check identity of parties and witnesses and enquiry is only factual - There is no question of law or legal question involved in such an enquiry for Advocate to be present and give clarification to Registrar of Marriages - Registrar of Marriages is performing a public duty and Act itself provides that he should give reasons for refusing to register a marriage and order passed by him is an appealable one - Court find there is no scope for presence of Lawyer-cum-Priest for effecting registration of a marriage - When Registrar entertains any doubt with regard to performance of marriage he may call upon parties to produce further information to satisfy himself and only at that juncture necessity of Priest to appear before Registrar may arise and not otherwise - Court do not approve of Advocates appearing before Registrar and presenting Memorandum of Registration for that would definitely lower dignity of Bar in eyes of public - Preamble of Bar Council Rules extracted above clearly states that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of Bar or for a member of Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an advocate - Petitions are disposed of
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. Sitting in the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction, we frequently came across cases filed by young men between 21 and 25 contending that, the given detenue is his wife having married and registered the marriage either in the Office of the Marriage Registrar, Chennai North (Joint-I) or Marriage Registrar, Royapuram, and further alleging that the parents are keeping the detenue in illegal custody.
2. On the strength of the Marriage Certificate produced by the petitioner, we were routinely issuing Rule Nisi for the production of the detenue in order to check if she was in the illegal custody of her parents. In several cases we found the detenue, when produced before us, telling that she has not undergone any solemnisation of marriage with the petitioner and even repudiated the very Certificate of Marriage as a bogus one.
3. In HCP No.2767/2013, S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan, the petitioner, has stated in his affidavit that he hails from Theni District and had fallen in love with the detenue and that they got married on 14.06.2013 at Arulmighu Vadapalani Murugan Temple in Chennai and that the marriage was registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act, 2009 with the Registrar of Marriages, Chennai North (Joint-I), on the same day. We issued notice to the respondents and directed production of the detenue. The detenue appeared before us on 05.12.2013 and told us that, though she knew the petitioner, she had not married him at all and the Marriage Certificate that was produced in support of the claim of marriage has been obtained without her knowledge and consent.
4. On carefully scrutinizing the Marriage Certificate, we found that the place of solemnisation of the marriage has been given as No.154, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai 600 001, whereas, in the affidavit of the petitioner he has stated that he got married in Arulmighu Vadapalani Murugan Temple, which is at Vadapalani and not anywhere near the address given in the Marriage Certificate. All this aroused strong suspicion in our mind and therefore, we passed a detailed order on 05.12.2013, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:
"5. Before parting with the matter, we find that almost in all Habeas Corpus Petitions where the boys/husbands, alleged to have married the detenues/young girls, produce Marriage Certificates in proof of their marriage issued by the Sub Registrar, Royapuram. After notice, the detenues come before this Court and deny any relationship with the boys. Whereas, the boys state that the said Marriage Certificates have been obtained with the consent and knowledge of the detenues/girls. We do not know how these Certificates are issued by a Government Office, without any proper identification and verification of the parties concerned. Moreover, the issuance of such Marriage Certificates by the said office would also impair the reputation and status of the girl's family. Besides that, the said certificates can also be utilised by the alleged husband by filing cases and the girl's family will be unnecessarily put to great difficulty and hardship on account of that. It is further informed that there are other two institutions, viz., [1] a Christian Organisation functioning in Royapuram, Chennai and [2] a Hindu Organisation functioning in Kodambakkam, Chennai, who do solemnise such marriages and issue certificates, similar to the one issued by the Sub Registrar, Royapuram. Since this has become an order of the day, we would like to take serious note of this fact and to consider passing appropriate orders.
6. Therefore, in order to nip it in the bud, we direct the DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CBCID HEADQUARTERS, SIDCO ELECTRONIC COMPLEX, GUINDY, CHENNAI -600 032 to appoint a competent authority in the rank of the Superintendent of Police, to enquire into the matter, viz., to find out the modus operandi of these offices as to how they issue such Marriage Certificates; whether the parties are appearing before them and signing any registe
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
