Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Q.H. Siddiqui, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II, Sri S.K. Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri S.S. Shreenet, learned standing counsel for the state Respondents. Sri Rakesh Chandra Yadav learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and made submissions on 2.9.2014.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to not interfere in the peaceful marriage life of the petitioners, during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) issue any other, suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii)award to cost of the petition to the petitioners.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for protection as married couple, during the pendeny of the writ petition, on the ground that the petitioners have married with each other as evident from the alleged marriage certificate, issued by Registrar Hindu Marriages, Sub District Etah, Etah (U.P.), a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5.

4. On 2nd September, 2014 Sri Rakesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and made submissions. This Court noticed that the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 is 18th August, 1994 as per High School Examination certificate and, as such, he has not attained the minimum age prescribed for marriage. However, in the alleged marriage certificate the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 was shown as 25th June, 1991. On these facts this Court passed the order dated 2nd Spetember, 2014 requiring the Registrar Hindu Marriages, District Etah to appear in person or through his counsel to explain the matter. Thereafter on the next date fixed neither the petitioner’s counsel appeared nor the Registrar Hindu Marriages appeared. Consequently this Court passed the order dated 25th September, 2014 directing the Registrar Hindu Marriages, Etah to appear in person and submit explanation. An affidavit of compliance of Sri Prem Prakash, Sub Registrar, Etah Sadar was filed. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit the aforesaid Sub Registrar stated that the alleged marriage certificate of the petitioners is forged and the marriage was not registered. On these facts this Court passed the following order on 14th October, 2014:

1. List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition. Although yesterday, learned counsel for the petitioner was present.

2. Today, in compliance to the order dated 25th October, 2014; an affidavit of compliance of Sri Prem Prakash, Sub-Registrar, Etah Sadar has been filed. In paragraph No. 3, he has explained the circumstances in which he could not file earlier affidavit of compliance pursuant to the order dated 2nd September, 2014. Explanation is accepted.

3. Sri Prem Prakash, Sub Registrar, Etah Sadar has produced the record. He stated that at present volume No. 5 is running and in which there is no entry of any marriage on 13th August, 2014. In paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit, he has stated that the alleged marriage certificate filed by the petitioners dated 13th August, 2014 is a forged paper. The alleged marriage of the petitioners were not at all registered in his office on 13th August, 2014.

4. In view of the aforenoted facts of filing of forged marriage certificate, this Court directs the Principal Secretary of the Registration Department to consider as to whether marriage certificates being issued by the Registrar, Hindu Marriages may be uploaded on Internet in the manner as domicile certificates are issued and uploaded, so as to rule out the possibility of forged marriage certificates and to make convenient to verify such marriage certificates by the persons/au