Marriages performed by Advocates in their office are not valid unless registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009, and physical appearance before the Registrar is essential for a valid marriage.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents to produce the body or person of detenu by name Mathithra, aged 21 years wife of Ilavarasan before this Court and set her at liberty.)

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. The petitioner seeking production of his wife namely Mathithra, aged about 21 years has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. Mr. S. Ravi, learned  Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he fell in love with the detenu and since the detenu was a minor at that time, they decided to get married after sometime. In the meanwhile, the parents of the detenu performed a child marriage without her volition with the fourth respondent herein forcibly. Thereafter, the detenu voluntarily came out from the parental home and went to the petitioner''s house. On 24.04.2023, the detenue and the petitioner got married. On 03.05.2023, the third respondent came to the house of the petitioner and forcibly taken away her. Hence, this petition is filed.

4. Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that earlier child marriage was performed by the parents of the detenue, which was opposed by the detenue and there is no compatibility in the said marriage. Thereafter, on her own volition, the detenue decided to join with the petitioner. Accordingly, a special marriage was conducted in the presence of Advocates and office bearers of the Trade Union, under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and it is perfectly a valid marriage. Hence, this Court may issue a direction the Law Enforcing Agency to secure the detenue from the fourth respondent and hand over her custody with the petitioner.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents submitted that the petitioner kidnapped the detenu twice. The cases in Crime No.46 of 2023 and C.S.R.No.88 of 2023 were registered against the petitioner for the alleged kidnaps. Suppressing the same, the petitioner filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition in order to harass the parents of the detenu as well as the detenu. He further submitted that during enquiry, the detenu wants to go along with the husband. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents.

7. The petitioner claims that the marriage between the petitioner and the detenu was performed in the presence of Kanagasabai M.A.B.L., and Balamurugan, who is the Deputy Secretary of State Legal Wing, District Trade Union, Tiruppur, who claim to be advocates and based on which, marriage was performed on 24.04.2023. A self respect marriage certificate was also issued by the above said advocates.

8. We are wondered as to how the Advocates are authorised to perform special marriages in their office or Trade Union. When a similar matter came up for consideration in S.Balakrishnan Pandiyan vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District and others, reported in 2014 (6) CTC 129, this Court has categorically held as follows:

“39. Our declaration of law that, marriages performed in secrecy in the Office of Advocates and Bar Association Rooms cannot amount to solemnisation within the meaning of Sections 7 and 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, cannot be used as a sword by the males for cutting the nuptial knot in matrimonial proceedings, but can be used only by the fair sex to get liberated from sham marriages of this nature. We also hold that the Certificate of Solemnisation issued by Advocates will not be per se proof of Solemnisation of Marriage in a matrimonial dispute.

40. Coming to the propriety of Advocates going to the Registration Office and presenting the Memorandum of Registration of Marriages, Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj submitted that, there is no bar for the Ad