The High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the rectification of a marriage certificate to reflect the correct date of marriage, even if the Registrar lacks specific statutory power to do so.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Aditya Davda, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Gujarat Public Trust Act seeking below mentioned relief:-

“14 (A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner either to rectify the memorandum of marriage or to file a fresh memorandum of marriage and consequently direct the respondents to issue a fresh marriage certificate reflecting the correct date of marriage i.e. 15.12.2025 and further be pleased to quash and set aside the communication dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure A Colly).

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to cancel the existing marriage certificate dated 18.3.2024 (Annexure A Colly) and issue a fresh marriage certificate reflecting the correct the date of marriage i.e. 15.12.2025,

(C) To pass such other and further orders necessary in the interest of justice.”

4. The writ applicant herein seeks direction upon the respondent no.2 - Registrar of Marriages ('Registrar") to correct the date of marriage in the writ applicant's marriage certificate bearing no.167MR20240000215 dated 18.03.2024. The writ applicant by way of this writ application seeking change in the marriage certificate from 11.03.2024 to 15.12.2025.

5. Mr. Sankhesara, the learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant stated that the writ applicant is living in Valsad and her marriage was scheduled to take place on 11.03.2024 with Mr.Manthan Talekar, who is a permanent residence permit holder of Germany and is working there as a Simulation and Validation Engineer. However, due to ill health of husband the marriage was scheduled in a Temple with a very small number of relatives attending the marriage. Since, the marriage ceremony was to be held in a Temple in presence of very few relatives, they performed the ceremonies of exchanging garlands, tying mangalsutra and applying sindhoor, copy of the photographs are duly annexed at Annexure-C and D of the writ application. However, the ceremony of "datta homa" and "Saptapadi" (i.e. taking seven steps around the sacred fire) were not performed. It was mutually decided by the family members of bride and groom that after the health of the husband improves the family would organize another function in a party plot whereat the ceremony of "datta homa" and "Saptapadi" would be performed in presence of various relatives and friends. The said subsequent function was scheduled to be held on 15.12.2025 whereat the ceremonies of "datta homa" and "saptapadi" were performed.

6. Mr. Sankhesara, the learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant has relied on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 19647 of 2019 by order dated 09.01.2020. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 15 has held and observed thus :-

"[13] In the situation as arisen in the present case, it cannot be said that the respondent authority is at fault in taking the impugned decision. The respondent No.2 was within his power to issue the certificate and was also within his power to pass the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 as there is no provision of law which can enable the responden