ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 21.09.2020.

2. The case of the petitioner is that while she was studying in Higher Secondary School in the year 2014-2016, she got acquainted with the third respondent. During the relevant point of time, the petitioner was aged about 17 years and the third respondent was aged about 22 years.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the third respondent mislead the petitioner and took her to the Sub Registrar Office and made her sign in certain documents and later the petitioner came to know that the third respondent had registered the marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent. According to the petitioner, during the relevant point of time, she was aged about 17 years and therefore, the entire marriage was invalid in the eye of law.

4. The petitioner made a representation/application before the first respondent seeking for cancellation of the registration on the ground that the entire registration was invalid, since no marriage took place between the petitioner and the third respondent. The first respondent rejected the application and directed the petitioner to seek for an appropriate remedy before the competent Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire process that was undertaken by the second respondent in registering the marriage was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Tamilnadu Registration of Marriage Act, 2009. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 7 of the Act specifically provides that the Registering Authority must scrutinize all the documents and must satisfy himself that the parties have attained requisite age for marriage and only thereafter, the registration should have taken place, whereas in the present case, there was absolutely no scrutiny of documents and no verification was made and the registration was mechanically undertaken by the second respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that no formal marriage took place between the petitioner and the third respondent and in fact, the Certificate that was produced by the third respondent before the second respondent was a forged document and no such certificate was given by the Priest. The learned counsel submitted that the third respondent has now proceeded to marry another girl and the petitioner has been left in the lurch and if the registration of the marriage is not annulled, the future prospects of the petitioner will be completely jeopardized.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, who is the Parish Priest, who is said to have conducted the marriage submitted that he had not conducted the marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent and during the relevant point of time, he was not present in the Church. The learned counsel further submitted that the so called Marriage Certificate was not signed by the fourth respondent and it is a forged document.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that the petitioner and the third respondent had a love affair and the petitioner was present at the time of the registration of marriage and for reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner is now denying the marriage and seeking for annulment of the registration. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was aged about 17 years at the time of marriage and the third respondent was aged about 22 years. The learned counsel made it clear that if the registration made by the second respondent, on the face of it, is not legal, he leaves it to this Court to take any appropriate decision and the third respondent will abide by the same.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

9. It is clear from the facts of the case that the petitioner and the third respondent are k