Gujarat High Court
Suketa vs State on 9 December, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15736/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15736 of
2010
=========================================================
SUKETA
HASMUKHBHAI PATEL & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MTM HAKIM for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR JK SHAH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 09/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard, Shri. M.T.M. Hakim, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J.K. Shah, learned AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on advance copy.
2. From a perusal of the material on record, it emerges that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, both are above 21 years of age. They, however, belong to different communities. They have decided to get married, without changing their religions. They, therefore, applied to the Marriage Registrar, Vadodara, for solemnizing their marriage, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954(for short 'the Said Act'). Notice under Section-5 of the said Act was issued, on, or around, 22.09.2010.
3. As per the provisions of the said Act, such notice is to be published by affixing a copy thereof on a conspicuous place of the Office of Marriage Registrar. Section-7 of the said Act pertains to the objections to such a marriage.
4. It appears that father of petitioner No.1, girl, has objection to such intercaste marriage. He has, therefore, raised objections, in writing, before the Marriage Registrar, on 04.10.2010. Upon perusal of the said document, it would emerge that his objections are that the petitioners have not taken consent of their elders. They belong to different religions, they, therefore, cannot enter into a marriage without, at least, one of them getting converted to the religion of the other. Since, they belong to different communities, it would not be possible for them to live happily. If the marriage is solemnized, there is likelihood of communal tension between the two communities. The Government of Gujarat has also put restrictions on such intercaste marriages.
5. When the petitioners inquired with the Registrar of Marriage regarding their notice, they were informed that, on their notice, the Registrar has put an endorsement dated 04.10.2010, that objections have been received from the father of the girl, which are kept on record.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Marriage Registrar is not performing the marriage, under the said Act, simply because the father of the girl has raised objections. He submitted that the objections of the father of the girl are totally invalid and on none of the objections raised, the Registrar can refuse to solemnize the marriage, under the said Act, since both the petitioners fulfill all the conditions to enter into a marriage. It is, further, submitted that none of the objections raised by the father of the girl, fall under any of the provisions of Section-4 of the said Act, which provides for conditions for solemnizing a special marriage, under the said Act. He, further, submitted that, precisely, to enable solemnization of marriage between the persons belonging to two different communities, castes, religions, the said Act was enacted. Both the petitioners, being above 21 years of age, consent of their parents and relatives is not necessary. There are no restrictions on intercaste marriages, in particular, in solemnization of marriages under the said Act.
7. In support of the above contentions he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of LATA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER , reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3499, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the State Authorities should also facilitate intercaste marriages and provide necessary protection, if so required.
8. I am of the opinion that the Marriage Registrar cannot, indefinitely, postpone the request of the petitioners, for solemnizing their marriage, particularly, when Section-14 of the Act provides for three months validity period of such a notice. After the notice has been given under Section-5 of the Act and on completion of statutory period of one month, the Marriage Registrar has to deal with the objections, if any, received.
9. None of the objections raised by the father of the girl, prima facie, would prevent the Marriage Registrar from solemnizing marriage of the petitioners. However, these issues must be decided by him, on the basis of provisions contained in the said Act and, in particular, Section-4 of the said Act and if it is found that the petitioners fulfill all the conditions, for entering into a valid marriage under the said Act, he shall proceed further in terms of the provisions of the said Act and shall solemnize the marriage of the petitioners. The entire exercise will be completed, latest by 20TH DECEMBER, 2010.
10. With the above observations and directions, this petition is DISPOSED OF. Direct service is permitted.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) Umesh/ Top