Ashutosh Mishra & Ors vs Government Ofnct Of Delhi & Anr on 15 October, 2025

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ashutosh Mishra & Ors vs Government Ofnct Of Delhi & Anr on 15 October, 2025

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking a direction to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) to register their marriage, in accordance with the provisions of Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014, through video conferencing, without insisting on their physical appearance before the Registering Authority.

2. The factual matrix set forth by the petitioners is that the petitioners solemnised their marriage according to Hindu rites and customs on 23.12.2024 and thereafter, initiated the registration process via the e-District Delhi Portal on 30.12.2024. The petitioners appeared before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate/ respondent no.1 and Deputy Commissioner, North- West Delhi/ respondent no.2 on 01.01.2025. However, due to a technical server malfunction, the registration process could not be completed.

3. Owing to professional and residential commitments, the petitioners departed for Chelmsford, Massachusetts, USA in January 2025.

4. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 is currently employed with This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:30:48 Highland Electric Fleets, Inc., United States, and his employment tenure is scheduled to conclude on 15.10.2025. Upon cessation of employment, his H1B visa status shall automatically lapse; thereafter, petitioner no.1 will be granted a 60-day grace period under applicable U.S. immigration laws to either secure a new employment sponsorship or transition to a dependent (H4) visa, based on the valid H1B visa of his spouse/petitioner no.2.

5. It is further submitted that a registered marriage certificate issued by the competent authority in India is a mandatory prerequisite for the said visa transition. In the absence thereof, the petitioners shall be rendered out of lawful immigration status, exposing them to deportation, employment disruption, and adverse consequences to their family life.

6. In a similar conspectus, this Court, in Reena Chadha & Anr. vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi (W.P.(C) 6653/2021), held as under:

14. In Charanjit Kaur Nagi (Supra) this Court, way back in the year 2007, when the use of Video Conferencing was still at a very nascent stage, permitted registration of marriage without insistence on the physical appearance of one of the parties to the marriage, while permitting appearance through Video Conferencing. It may be useful to refer to paragraph 14 to 16 of the said decision which read as under :

"14. So viewed the real effect of the declaration and the particulars sought are as to the name and parentage of parties, date of birth and details such as residence proof and relations before marriage. As noticed earlier under the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage is not solemnized by the Registrar, but certified to have been solemnized, by the Registrar on the basis of application to him. Under the Hindu Marriage Act he merely issues a certificate that according to the information supplied to him the parties were married on a particular date. Form B which is in terms of Rule 4 is to the same effect; it is part of the Register under Rule 4. (Emphasis supplied)

15. It would be evident from the above discussion that the status of the parties is attested to on basis of information furnished to the Registrar. He is not the official invested by the State with authority to solemnize the marriage. Prima facie a reading of Form A and B no doubt lends support This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:30:48 to the view of the respondents indeed that the normal method is one where spouses are expected to apply and affirm about their marriage. But what ought to be a situation--where parties are living at a considerable distance from each other and yet desire the furnishing of certificate has not been provided for under the Rules. (Emphasis supplied)

16. Rule 3 was framed at a time when technology was nascent; developments that have changed the world and the way we view the world today were unimaginable, and perhaps beyond comprehension of the rule makers. It is possible for a person living thousands of kilometers away from Delhi or anywhere in India to simultaneously communicate with another party. Also, technology has enabled parties today to attest documents digitally, and ensure digitally secure transmission, through Internet. The objective and philosophy underlying Information Technology Act is based on these developments. In these circumstances the inaction or indifference of the State to recognize these developments and provide for a suitable mechanism to facilitate (what is required to do) i.e. registration of marriage of spouses separated by distance, has to be addressed. The law has to adapt to changing times. Here, the requirements spelt out half a century ago are acting as impediments, even though technology has enabled myriad solutions to the authorities. It is open to evolve a suitable mechanism with a mix of technology by incorporating video- conferencing, authentication of identities by Embassies, and attestation of signatures in a similar manner."

15. It may also be apposite to refer to the decision in Upasana Bali & Anr. (Supra), where the Jharkhand High Court while allowing the petition of a similarly placed couple, who were residing in the United Kingdom (UK), directed the Registering Authority under the Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Rules to accept their application for registration of marriage through their Power of Attorney holder, and to permit them to personally appear before the authority through Video Conferencing. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision wherein the Court noticed that Video Conferencing is readily available with the public at large, read as under:

"13. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the requirement of presentation of application for registration of the marriage under the Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2002 can be met fully, when such application is presented by duly authorized power of attorney of the parties, authorized jointly or separately, coupled with This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:30:48 satisfaction of the registering authority through videoconferencing from the persons who are seeking registration of their marriage and for that reason the registering authority may permit appearance through video- conferencing whenever any need arise for opting for such procedure.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the document for registration can be submitted through power of attorney, which is specifically provided in the Registration Act itself. However, that provision can be used only for the purpose of presentation of the application by power of attorney of the party to the marriage and to avoid any future dispute, a cheap mode of Video Conferencing can be used for the purpose of verifying the facts from the party to marriage, for which registering authority may take help of Video Conferencing facility provided by several providers, like Skype or even provided by Email providers, like yahoo.com and gmail.com etc. The Video Conferencing is not new and out of reach mode but it is readily available with public at large and is also not expensive one rather a cheap mode to live Internet. Normally the Government officers of the rank of the Registering authority or Registrar of the Marriages, may have been provided with Computer and Laptop facility with Internet connection, which can be used by such officer and if they are not having that facility then the parties may be asked to provide this facility for satisfaction of the registering authority about the genuineness of the parties to the marriage." (Emphasis supplied)

16. Similar directions were issued by the Kerala High Court in Pardeep Kodiveedu Cletus & Anr. (Supra) wherein the Court, in Paragraph 9 of its judgment observed that the provision for registration of marriage could certainly be interpreted as enabling the Local Registrar to obtain personal appearance through Video Conferencing as well, the said paragraph reads as under:

"9. As noted above, the question is whether the said provision can be interpreted as conferring power to the Local Registrar to ensure personal appearance through Video Conferencing as well. It is presumed that the law makers intend the court to apply to an ongoing statute/rule a construction that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since the introduction of the statute/rule. In other words, the language of the statute/rule, though necessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed in accordance with the need to treat it current law. This means that the courts will be justified in interpreting provisions contained in the ongoing legislations in such a way making allowances for the relevant changes that have occurred since the introduction of the legislation in law, This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:30:48 social conditions, technology etc. [See State v. S.J. Choudhary, [(1996) 2 SCC 428]. The principle is that the law cannot remain standstill; it must change with the changing social concepts and values. If the law fails to respond to the needs of the changing society, then either it will stifle the growth of the society and choke its progress or if the society is vigorous enough, it will cast away the law which stands in the way of its growth. There cannot be any doubt that personal appearance of the parties to the marriage is insisted in terms of the Rules for registration of the marriage to ensure that the marriage is registered with their knowledge. If the purpose of the Rule which insists personal appearance of the parties to the marriage could be ensured by Video Conferencing, there shall not be any impediment for the court in interpreting the provisions in such a way as permitting insistence of personal appearance through Video Conferencing. It is common knowledge that the virtual presence of a person living in a different country can be ensured by Video Conferencing. In State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (Dr.), [(2003) 4 SCC 601], the Apex Court has approved in the context of criminal trial that the requirement of 'personal appearance' can be ensured through Video Conferencing as well. There cannot be any doubt that the Local Registrar can certainly ensure that the application for registration of the marriage is preferred with the knowledge of the parties, through Video Conferencing. If that be so, I am of the view that the provision contained in Rule 11 of the Rules can certainly be interpreted as enabling the Local Registrar to obtain personal appearance through Video Conferencing as well. A contrary interpretation, as observed by Justice Bhagawati in National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan [(1983) 1 SCC 228], would have the effect of allowing the dead hand of the past stifling the growth of the living present." (Emphasis supplied)

17. In its recent decision in Ami Ranjan (Supra), a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court having considered the aforenoted decisions of different High Courts, has also passed similar directions for accepting the personal presence of a party for the registration of marriage through Video Conferencing. In fact, the Supreme Court, while rejecting a challenge to this decision, has opined that there was no reason to interfere with these practical directions of the High Court.

18. At this juncture, reference may also be made to the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (Dr), (2003) 4 SCC 601 wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 19 of its decision, expounded upon the importance of Video Conferencing by observing as under:

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:30:48

"19. At this stage we must deal with a submission made by Mr. Sundaram. It was submitted that video-conferencing could not be allowed as the rights of an accused, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be subjected to a procedure involving "virtual reality". Such an argument displays ignorance of the concept of virtual reality and also of video-conferencing. Virtual reality is a state where one is made to feel, hear or imagine what does not really exist. In virtual reality, one can be made to feel cold when one is sitting in a hot room, one can be made to hear the sound of the ocean when one is sitting in the mountains, one can be made to imagine that he is taking part in a Grand Prix race whilst one is relaxing on one's sofa etc. Video-conferencing has nothing to do with virtual reality. Advances in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far away, as they are actually taking place. To take an example, today one does not need to go to South Africa to watch World Cup matches. One can watch the game, live as it is going on, on one's TV. If a person is sitting in the stadium and watching the match, the match is being played in his sight/presence and he/she is in the presence of the players. When a person is sitting in his drawing room and watching the match on TV, it cannot be said that he is in the presence of the players but at the same time, in a broad sense, it can be said that the match is being played in his presence. Both, the person sitting in the stadium and the person in the drawing room, are watching what is actually happening as it is happening. This is not virtual reality, it is actual reality. One is actually seeing and hearing what is happening. Video-conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching, one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video-conferencing both parties are in the presence of each other. The submissions of the respondents' counsel are akin to an argument that a person seeing through binoculars or telescope is not actually seeing what is happening. It is akin to submitting that a person seen through binoculars or telescope is not in the "presence" of the person observing. Thus it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video-conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the "presence" of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per "procedure established by law". (Emphasis supplied) This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:30:48

19. In light of the aforesaid, I am of the view that, in times such as these, when technology has proven to be the bridge that ensured uninterrupted communication, widespread dissemination of information in public interest and the smooth functioning of society, the Court cannot allow a rigid interpretation of the statute to prevent citizens from exercising their rights.

20. In a little over half a decade, since the Registration Order was notified, the universe has undergone a sea change but the Registering Authority, while exercising its power and jurisdiction under the Registration Order is refusing to recognize the reality that with the technology as is available today, web portals and Video Conferencing have become almost the norm.

XXX XXX XXX

22. At this stage, it may also be useful to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India 2020 3 SCC 637 in which the Court emphasized the need to adapt technological advancements while dispensing justice. The same reads as under:

"24. Law and technology seldom mix like oil and water. There is a consistent criticism that the development of technology is not met by equivalent movement in the law. In this context, we need to note that the law should imbibe the technological development and accordingly mould its rules so as to cater to the needs of society. Non recognition of technology within the sphere of law is only a disservice to the inevitable. In this light, the importance of internet cannot be underestimated, as from morning to night we are encapsulated within the cyberspace and our most basic activities are enabled by the use of internet." (Emphasis supplied) XXX XXX XXX

25. Thus, looked at from any angle, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the term 'personal appearance' in Clause 4 of the Registration Order has to be read to include presence secured through Video Conferencing. Any other interpretation, would not only frustrate the very purpose of this beneficial legislation, but, it would also undermine the use of this important and easily accessible tool of Video Conferencing. The same would also be against the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Praful B. Desai (Supra) in which the Court while observing that Video Conferencing permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away with the same ease as if he/she is physically present, had allowed the recording of evidence in a criminal trial through Video This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:30:48 Conferencing.

26. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is entitled to succeed and is accordingly allowed. It is directed that the parties seeking registration of their marriage under the Registration Order, will be entitled to submit a physical copy of their application through their attorney and also enter personal appearance, as and when required, through Video Conferencing, which application would be duly processed by the registering authority, subject to submission of duly notarized copies of all relevant documents before the authority physically and fulfilling all other procedural requirements."

7. Similarly, in Garima Singh and Anr. vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (W.P.(C) 2723/2024), this Court, following the decision rendered in Reena Chadha (supra), allowed the petitioners to appear before the Registering Authority through video conferencing for the purpose of registration of their marriage.

8. Further, in Sadaf vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (W.P(C) 14496/2025), this Court again directed as under:

"7. In the circumstances, in line with the directions passed in the aforesaid case, as also in the case of Madiha Shariq and Another v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr., W.P. (C) 9768/2022 and Asher Ahmed vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) 15772/2024, the following directions are issued:

a) The petitioner's husband is permitted to join the proceedings before the concerned SDM for the purpose of registration of marriage through video conferencing, however, the petitioner shall be present physically before the SDM;

b) The witnesses, as required under the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014, shall appear physically before the concerned SDM along with their original ID proofs, on the date specified;

c) For the aforesaid purpose, the SDM shall fix a date within a period of 15 days from today under intimation to the petitioner; and

d) The application for registration of marriage shall be processed and dealt with by the concerned SDM on its merits and in accordance with law."

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:30:48

9. In the circumstances, in view of the decisions rendered in Reena Chadha (supra), Garima Singh (supra), and Sadaf vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi (supra), the present petition is allowed.

10. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:

a.) The petitioners are permitted to appear before the Registering Authority through video conferencing for the purpose of registration of their marriage.

b.) The witnesses, as required under the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014, shall appear physically before the concerned SDM along with their original ID proofs, on the date specified; c.) The application for registration of marriage shall be processed and dealt with by the concerned SDM on its merits and in accordance with law.

11. Let expeditious steps be taken for conclusion of the formalities for registration of the marriage in accordance with the aforesaid directions, keeping in mind the urgency emphasized by the petitioners.

12. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 15, 2025/ss This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:30:48

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders