Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
N.K. Gupta, S.K. Awasthi, JJ.
Arya Samaj, Naya Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of MP & Ors. - Respondents
WA 385, 398 of 2016 & 55 of 2017
Decided On : 27-06-2017
Habeas Corpus - Arya Samaj - Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Arya Marriage Validation Act 1937, Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, Madhya Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Rules, 2008 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Arya Marriage Validation Act 1937, Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, and Madhya Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Rules, 2008. It highlighted the powers of Arya Samaj under the Arya Marriage Validation Act 1937 and the legal requirements for marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act and Child Marriage Restraint Act. The court emphasized that the directions given by the Single Bench were contrary to existing laws and internal rules of Arya Samaj, and the court concluded that the Single Bench was not competent to legislate such rules in the form of directions.
Fact of the Case:
A petition of Habeas Corpus was filed as the daughter was missing and was found to be married to a respondent with the help of Arya Samaj. The Single Bench issued directions related to the performance of marriage and verification of legal requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the directions given by the Single Bench were contrary to existing laws and internal rules of Arya Samaj, and the Single Bench was not competent to legislate such rules in the form of directions.
Issues: The issues included the scope of Habeas Corpus petition, the authority of the High Court to issue directions, and the necessity of the directions given by the Single Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the directions given by the Single Bench were contrary to existing laws and internal rules of Arya Samaj, and the Single Bench was not competent to legislate such rules in the form of directions.
Final Decision: All the writ appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside up to the extent relating to various directions given in para 12 of the order.
N.K. Gupta, J.
Since all the writ appeals are filed against the common order dated 13/10/2016 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4424/2016 (Habeas Corpus), they are decided by the present common order.
2. All the three writ appeals have been filed by various Branches of Arya Samaj challenging the aforesaid order whereby the Single Bench of this Court has issued some directions in para 12 of the order.
3. Facts of the case, in short, are that one Naresh Soni filed a petition of Habeas Corpus that his daughter was missing. The corpus was brought before the Single Bench of this Court and it was informed that she was married to one Sunil Rajak who was respondent No.4 in the petition and such marriage was performed by Purohit of Arya Samaj. The petition of Habeas Corpus was disposed off vide order dated 13/10/2016 with some observations given in para 12 which are reproduced as under:-
"i. In the event bride and bridegroom present themselves before the management of the Arya Samaj Mandir with applications for solemnization of marriage as per Arya Samaj rites and rituals, it shall be the duty of the management to first issue notice affixing photographs of the bride and bridegroom to the parents/families of both at the declared address and also affix such notice in that behalf on the notice board of the Mandir inviting objections, if any, to ensure that; (i) neither party has a spouse living, (ii) neither party is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind or though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children or has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity, (iii) declarations must contain that the marriage is not performed by fear, threat or coercion; (iv) the male has completed the age of twenty one years and the female the age of eighteen years, and (v) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, provided that where a custom governing at least one of the parties permits of a marriage between them, such marriage may be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship.
A reasonable time of at least seven days be prescribed in the notice.
(ii) If objection is received, the same shall be dealt with by the Mandir management, with due verification of facts. If need be, assistance of local police may also be taken.
(iii) Declarations from the bride and bridegroom shall be obtained not on a cyclostyle format on a piece of paper, but on a non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs.100/- or more purchased in their names for marriage purpose that they are aware of the noble ideals, objects, rituals, traditions of Arya Samaj and endorse faith & belief, practices & follows the same, duly notarized by a licensed Notary with due identification by an Advocate and Mandir Management shall also verify the credibility of such declaration from known sources, viz. Arya Samaj Temples mentioned by them and/or the community of Arya Samajists known to them, in writing.
(iv) The date of birth of bride and bridegroom shall be verified through the original 10th class mark-sheet of each one of them.
(v) In the event the bride and bridegroom are not educated, verification of fact of their age shall be done from the respective families or through the medical ossification at the Government Hospital or Government recognized Medical Practitioner with affixation of seal.
(vi) The original residential address of bride and bridegroom shall also be verified either through documentary evidence or through an enquiry and, if required, with the help of local police.
(vii) Upon verification of aforesaid facts and ascertainment of bona fide intention of bride and bridegroom for solemnization of marriage, the mandir management shall ensure solemnization of marriage with due observance of Saptpadi and all customary rites, ritu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
