1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 22.04.2019

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

WP(MD)No.4125 of 2019

and

WMP(MD)No.3220 of 2019

1.Arunkumar

2.Sreeja

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration,

No.100, Santhome High Road,

Chennai – 600 028.

2.The District Registrar, Tuticorin & District.

3.The Joint Registrar No.II,

O/o.Joint Registrar No.II, Tuticorin & District.

4.The Secretary to Government,

Health and Family Welfare Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu.

5.The Director, Ambedkar Foundation,

(an autonomous Body under the Ministry

of Social Justice and Empowerment),

15, Janapath, New Delhi – 110 001.

... Respondents

(4^th and 5^th respondents are suo motu

impleaded vide court order dated 29.03.2019)

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,

to call for the records pertaining to the order of proceedings of

the third respondent in No.1/2018 Na.Ka.No.187/2018 dated 16.11.2018

and the order of proceedings of the second respondent in

Na.Ka.No.5876/E2/2018 dated 28.12.2018 and quash the same as illegal

and consequently directing the respondents to register the marriage

which took place on Arulmighu Shangara Rameswara Temple, Tuticorin

dated 31.10.2018.

For petitioners

: Mrs.Sivasankari

for Mr.M.Krishnaveni

For Respondents 1 to 3

: Mr.M.Murugan,

Government Advocate

ORDER

A marriage solemnized between a male and a transwoman, both

professing Hindu religion, is a valid marriage in terms of Section 5

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Registrar of Marriages is

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

bound to register the same. By holding so, this Court is not

breaking any new ground. It is merely stating the obvious.

Sometimes to see the obvious, one needs not only physical vision in

the eye but also love in the heart.

2.Let us start with the facts first. The first petitioner

Shri.Arunkumar got married to the second petitioner Ms.Srija on

31.10.2018 at Arulmighu Sankara Rameswara Temple, Tuticorin as per

Hindu rites and customs. The village administrative officer has

certified that this marriage was in fact performed and that it was

not a bigamous one for either. The temple authorities though

permitted the performance of the marriage declined to vouch for it.

When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage

under Rule 5 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages

Rules in Form I before the third respondent, the third respondent

refused to register the same. Questioning the said decision taken

by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 16.11.2018, the

petitioners herein filed an appeal before the second respondent.

The second respondent also vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5876/E2/2018

dated 28.12.2018 confirmed the decision of the third respondent.

Challenging the refusal to register their marriage, the petitioners

have filed this writ petition.

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents

1 to 3 submitted that Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of

Marriages Act, 2009 confers power to the Registrar of Marriages to

refuse registration. He could do so if he is satisfied that the

marriage between the parties was not performed in accordance with

the personal laws of the parties, any custom or usage or tradition.

As per Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act, if the documents tendered

before the Registrar of Marriages do not prove the marriage status

of the parties, he can refuse to register the marriage. In this

case, the authorities of the temple, where the marriage between the

parties was said to have been solemnized, had not issued any

certificate indicating the performance of the marriage. He further

contended that as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the

bridegroom must hav