The validity of a marriage registration is contingent upon the proper solemnization of the marriage and compliance with statutory requirements.

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Marriage Registration Certificate in Marriage Sl.No.425 of 2018, dated 07.08.2018, on file of the 2nd respondent, and quash the same.

2. The petitioner claims that the 3rd respondent behaved in a friendly manner towards her. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive a legal notice on 08.07.2022 from the third respondent. The notice revealed that she was married to the third respondent on 06.08.2018 at Annai Party Hall, No.1, Muthumari Chetty Street, Mannady, Chennai-600 001, and that the marriage was subsequently registered before the first respondent on 07.08.2018, referenced as marriage Sl.No.425 of 2018. The petitioner was taken to the office of the first respondent under the pretense that a friend of the 3rd respondent had eloped with someone else, and she signed whatever documents were presented to her, believing she was merely acting as a witness. She never realized that her signature would be used to claim that a marriage took place between her and the third respondent. It was only later, upon learning of the third respondent's claim, that arrangements were made to file a petition before the jurisdictional Family Court in Chennai. Accordingly, O.P.No.3360 of 2022 was filed before the Principal Family Judge, Chennai, for divorce by mutual consent, and proof affidavits were also submitted. When the matter was listed for final hearing on 27.01.2023, a demand for a large sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was made. The petitioner and her family were effectively held to ransom, with the threat that unless the amount was paid, he would not attend the hearing and resolve the issue. There are no marriage photographs or videographic evidence of the marriage. Under these circumstances, the Marriage Registration Certificate is being challenged before this Court.

3. The first respondent resisted the writ petition by filing a counter. The Registering Authority submitted that the forms were filed and the photographs were affixed. The petitioner and the third respondent were present before the Registering Authority and also affixed their left thumb impressions. The witness also duly identified the persons who signed, and the due process of registration took place. Accordingly, a Marriage Certificate was issued.

4. The third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that both the third respondent and the petitioner were in a relationship, and as a result, they got married on 06.08.2018, which was registered on 07.08.2018. According to the third respondent, the claims made in the affidavit are entirely false. Furthermore, the third respondent asserts that the matter concerning the validity of the marriage must be factually established before the jurisdictional Family Court, before which the petition in O.P.No.1541 of 2023, regarding the request for restitution of conjugal rights, is pending.

5. Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, strongly relies on the Division Bench of this Court in S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan v. R. Ram Prasath reported in [2014-5-L.W 207]. He submits that this Court has already considered in detail about all types of registrations made under the Act. Registration certificates are being issued without performing the marriage. It has been specifically held in that case that unless the marriage ceremonies are properly performed, marriages conducted in the offices of Advocates are invalid, and no registration certificate can be granted in respect thereof.

6. It is his contention that in this incident, the registration certificate is liable to be quashed on two grounds. Firstly, Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act , 2009, mandates that the memorandum filed under Section 5 for the registration of the marriage shall be signed by the parties to the marriage, the priest and two witnesses. The learned counsel draws the Court's atte