Marriage registration does not confer legitimacy without proof of a valid ceremony as per statutory requirements.

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. Sathish Kumar, respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.43 of

2022 on the file of the Family Court, Thanjavur seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case of the respondent herein is that he got married to the appellant herein on 17.01.2022 at V.P.S. Devi Marriage Hall at Sikkal as per the Hindu rites and customs and that it was duly registered on the file of the SRO, Nagapattinam on 19.01.2022. He further alleged that few dates later, the appellant left the matrimonial home and that since it was an inter-caste marriage, the appellant herein got considerable and coercive pressure on him. The matter was taken to the local police station who advised the parties to resort to civil remedy. He therefore filed the said petition seeking the relief. The appellant herein filed counter controverting all the assertions made in the petition. The respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. The appellant examined herself as R.W.1 and the Manager of the said wedding hall was examined as R.W.2. Ex.R.1 was marked. As many as four documents were marked as court witnesses. The Court below after considering the evidence on record, allowed the OP as prayed for on

12.04.2023. Questioning the same, this appeal came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and he called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order.

4. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 (3) CTC 551 ( Dolly Rani V. Manish Kumar Chanchal ), the learned counsel submitted that the marriage has not been proved and that therefore, the impugned order of the Court below has to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent by marking the Registration Certificate dated 19.01.2022 has proved the marriage solemnised between the parties. He drew our attention to wedding invitation card and other photographs. The photographs have been marked as Ex.P.6 series. He pointed out that the impugned order is well reasoned and it does not call for interference.

6. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

7. It is necessary to point out at the very outset, the marriage took place. Even according to the respondent, the marriage was not a civil marriage. The claim of the respondent was that the marriage took place between the parties as per Hindu rites and customs on 17.01.2022 at V.P.S. Devi Wedding Hall at Sikkal and that it was subsequently registered on 19.01.2022.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision reported in 2024 (3) CTC 551 ( Dolly Rani V. Manish Kumar Chanchal ) had categorically held as follows:-

“ 19. Under Section 8 of the Act, it is open for two Hindus married under the provisions of the Act to have their marriage registered provided they fulfil the conditions laid down therein regarding performance of requisite ceremonies. It is only when the marriage is solemnised in accordance with Section 7, there can be a marriage registered under Section 8. The State Governments have the power to make rules relating to the registration of marriages between two Hindus solemnised by way of requisite ceremonies. The advantage of registration is that it facilitates proof of factum of marriage in a disputed case. But if there has been no marriage in accordance with Section 7, the registration would not confer legitimacy to the marriage. We find that the registration of Hindu marriages under the said provision