Punjab-Haryana High Court
Binit Sikka And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 March, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.5080 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5080 of 2013
Date of Decision: 12.03.2013
Binit Sikka and another
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)
The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is that a direction be issued to the Registrar of Marriages-cum-Tehsildar, Jalandhar-respondent No. 2 to register their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage of petitioners was solemnized on 20.07.2010 and since the respondents had refused to register the same, they have filed the instant petition with the aforesaid prayer. The reason for refusing registration of the marriage of the petitioners was that petitioner no.1 was less than 21 years of age on the date of marriage.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, there may be no necessity for calling response from the State.
The facts of the case reveal that petitioner no.1 at the time of making of the application had acquired the statutory age of marriage and CWP No.5080 of 2013 -2- even on the date of marriage he was barely short of the requisite age. The Supreme Court in the case Seema vs. Ashwani Kumar, 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 963 has issued comprehensive directions to all the States and the Central Government to take necessary steps for making registration of the marriages of persons belonging to all religions as a compulsory step. For the purposes of reference, relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under:-
(i) The procedure for registration should be notified by respective States within three months from today. This can be done by amending the existing rules, if any, or by framing new rules. However, objections from members of the public shall be invited before bringing the said rules into force. In this connection, due publicity shall be given by the States and the matter shall be kept open for objections for a period of one month from the date of advertisement inviting objections. On the expiry of the said period, the State shall issue appropriate notification bringing the rules into force.
(ii) The officer appointed under the said rules of the States shall be duly authorised to register the marriages. The age, marital status (unmarried, divorce) shall be clearly stated. The consequence of non-registration of marriages or for filing false declaration shall also be provided for in the said rules. Needless to add that the object of the said rules shall be to carry out the directions of this Court.
(iii) As and when the Central Government enacts a comprehensive statute, the same shall be placed before this Court for scrutiny.
(iv) Learned counsel for various States and Union Territories shall ensure that the directions given herein are carried out immediately."
The reasoning adopted by the respondents that petitioner No.1 was not of marriageable age on the date of solemnization of marriage, if accepted would just defeat the very intent of the intended benefit of the directions given by the Supreme Court. But this Court hastens to add here that it does not imply that the statutory provisions of law have to be given a go-bye. On the date of application for registration of marriage, if all other CWP No.5080 of 2013 -3- requirements of law including age are satisfied then the registration of marriage ought not to be refused on any ground expect for the ones which are specified in Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. All that is required to be seen is that conditions as contained in Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act are fulfilled. The said conditions are enumerated hereinbelow:-
"(a) a ceremony of marriage has been performed between the parties and they have been living together as husband and wife ever since;
(b) neither party has at the time of registration more than one spouse living;
(c) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of registration;
(d) the parties have completed the age of twenty-one years at the time of registration;
(e) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship."
As observed in the foregoing paragraphs the registering authority is merely to see that there is a valid subsisting marriage and the parties have completed the age of 21 years at the time of registration and the parties are not within the degree of prohibited relationship and neither of the party is an idiot or lunatic at the time of marriage and further none of the parties has more than one living spouse. Having regard to the aforesaid, instant petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to forthwith register the marriage of the petitioners, however, subject to the satisfaction of the compliance of the conditions enumerated above.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 12.03.2013 manju