1. A marriage solemnized between a male and a transwoman, both professing Hindu religion, is a valid marriage in terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Registrar of Marriages is bound to register the same. By holding so, this Court is not breaking any new ground. It is merely stating the obvious. Sometimes to see the obvious, one needs not only physical vision in the eye but also love in the heart.

2. Let us start with the facts first. The first petitioner Shri. Arunkumar got married to the second petitioner Ms. Srija on 31.10.2018 at Arulmighu Sankara Rameswara Temple, Tuticorin as per Hindu rites and customs. The village administrative officer has certified that this marriage was in fact performed and that it was not a bigamous one for either. The temple authorities though permitted the performance of the marriage declined to vouch for it. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage under Rule 5 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Rules in Form I before the third respondent, the third respondent refused to register the same. Questioning the said decision taken by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 16.11.2018, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent also vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5876/E2/2018 dated 28.12.2018 confirmed the decision of the third respondent. Challenging the refusal to register their marriage, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009 confers power to the Registrar of Marriages to refuse registration. He could do so if he is satisfied that the marriage between the parties was not performed in accordance with the personal laws of the parties, any custom or usage or tradition. As per Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act, if the documents tendered before the Registrar of Marriages do not prove the marriage status of the parties, he can refuse to register the marriage. In this case, the authorities of the temple, where the marriage between the parties was said to have been solemnized, had not issued any certificate indicating the performance of the marriage. He further contended that as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the bridegroom must have completed the age of 21 years while the bride must have completed the age of 18 years at the time of marriage. To understand the meaning of expression “bride', in the order impugned in this writ petition, Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary of Current English was referred to. The term “Bride” can only refer to a “Woman on her wedding day”. In the case on hand, the second petitioner Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Thus the statutory requirement set out in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has not been fulfilled. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate wanted this Court to sustain the orders impugned in this writ petition and dismiss the writ petition.

4. I am unable to agree with the stand of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the issue on hand is no longer res integra. In the decision reported in (2014) 5 SCC 438 (National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India), the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the transgender persons' right to decide their self identified gender. The central and State governments were directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or third gender. This path breaking judgment has been cited with approval in the Nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India) and again by the Constitution Bench in the decision reported in (2018) 10 SCC 1 (Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India).

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.L.S.A Case