Madras High Court
T.Mariappan vs / on 13 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.21973 & 21974 of 2024
T.Mariappan ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2.The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
3.The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,
Aalangulam Sub-Division,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Pavuruchathiram Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.615 of 2020).
5.S.Paramakalyani @ Kalyani ... Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to
the impugned order of the Respondent No.2 in Colr/4511/2022-H7 dated
18.10.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbearing
the Respondents No.1 to 4 from disbursing the relief amount to the
Respondent No.5 under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) rules, 1995 in connection with Crime No.615
of 2020 on the file of the Respondent No.4 and provide the same to the
petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thirumurugan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj (R1 & R2)
Special Government Pleader
Ms.M.Aasha (R3 & R4)
Government Advocate
Mr.I.Pinaygash (R5)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 18.10.2024, thereby ordered to conduct enquiry on 25.10.2024 as directed by this Court in WP(MD)No. 8125 of 2021 in respect of the disbursal of compensation to the fifth respondent herein.
2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The petitioner is the father of one Sudalaimani, who died due to communal clash. The fifth respondent is the wife of said Sudalaimani. They belonged to scheduled caste community (Arundhatiyar). After marriage between the fifth respondent and her husband, namely, Sudalaimani, they entered into a mutual agreement dated 09.02.2015 and they got separated, when the petitioner's son, the deceased Sudalaimani was alive. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she is not entitled for any relief under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on the demise of the petitioner's son.
4. After demise of the petitioner's son, namely, Sudalaimani, an FIR has been registered in Crime No.615 of 2020 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(Va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. After completion of investigation, a chart sheet has been laid 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 and the same has been taken cognizance in SC No.30 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and it is pending for trial.
5. Insofar as the relief under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is concerned, the 5th respondent filed a writ petition before this Court in WP(MD)No. 8125 of 2021. This Court, by order dated 16.08.2023, directed the respondents to pay balance 50% ie., to the tune of Rs 4,25,000/- to the fifth respondent and her minor child, within a period of eight weeks.
6. The petitioner herein submitted an objection for disbursal of the compensation in favour of the fifth respondent herein on the ground that, while the petitioner's deceased son was alive, they got separated from the fifth respondent by customary divorce by executing mutual agreement dated 09.02.2015. That apart, the petitioner also disputed the birth of the female child through his son to the fifth respondent.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner's son and the fifth respondent got married on 19.12.2014 and they gave birth to a female child on 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 31.05.2015. While being so, the petitioner's son was murdered due to communal clash and died on 13.12.2020. Therefore, the fifth respondent being wife is entitled for compensation under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner made objection to disbursal of the compensation in favour of the fifth respondent. Infact, already 50% of the compensation was paid in favour of the petitioner. In the writ petition filed by the fifth respondent, this Court directed 50% of the remaining compensation to be paid in favour of the fifth respondent and her minor child. Now, the petitioner produced the deed of mutual agreement as if when the petitioner's deceased son, while he was alive, entered into mutual agreement with the fifth respondent and thereby got separated.
8. On perusal of the so-called mutual agreement dated 19.12.2014, nothing is mentioned about the date of execution and also, nowhere is mentioned about the date of marriage between the petitioner's deceased son and the fifth respondent. Further, the said deed was witnessed by the petitioner and his wife. The signature of the fifth respondent in the mutual agreement is also completely differed from the vakalat filed by 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 the fifth respondent before this Court. Even from the naked eye, the signature found in the deed of mutual agreement is completely different one. It says that the petitioner fabricated this mutual agreement, that too without mentioning the date of the deed, even without mentioning the marriage between the petitioner and the fifth respondent in order to negate the claim of the fifth respondent.
9. Infact, the petitioner submitted objection not to disburse the remaining 50% compensation in favour of the fifth respondent on 15.05.2024. On perusal of such objection, it revealed that the petitioner did not even whisper about the deed of mutual agreement between the petitioner's deceased son and the fifth respondent. It shows that only to file this writ petition, they fabricated the mutual agreement and produced before this Court. Infact, the signature of the petitioner also differs from the objection, FIR and the deed of mutual agreement. Further, even assuming that the deed of mutual agreement entered between the petitioner's deceased son and the fifth respondent is genuine one, it has no legal sanctity under any law.
6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024
10. In this regard, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dealt with the issue with regard to the validity of the deed of marriage and the dead of divorce in the case of B.Jegadeesh Chandra Bose Vs. Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District reported in 2009 (1) LW (Crl) 181. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“13.Insofar as the Hindu marriages are concerned, Section 5 of the Hindu Marriages Act contemplates conditions for a Hindu marriage, section 7 relates to ceremonies and Section 8 relates to registration of Hindu Marriages. Unless conditions under Section 5 relating to a valid consent and either of the spouse is not insane, the bride groom has completed 21 years and bride completes 18 years and they are not within the prohibited degrees and are not sapindas, marriage cannot be solemnized. Unless there is solemnization marriage, it cannot be performed as per the ceremonies under Section 7 and consequently registration of such marriage under Section 8 cannot be done. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Marriage (Registration) Rules, 1969, contemplates compulsory registration of marriage and the mode of application for registration. Applications are to be made in Form-I, along with application in Form-III, for registration of Hindu Marriage on the date of solemnization and a declaration is also provided as per Rule 10 in Form No.III by the husband and wife where the marriage is registered on the 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 date of solemnization. Unless conditions under Sections 5 and 7 are fulfilled, the marriage cannot be registered under Section 8 and the registration of the marriage should also be in conformity with the Rules referred to above. Without following the above, a Hindu Marriage cannot be registered. Further, registration of the marriage cannot be equated to a registration of marriage agreement.
14.Under The Indian Christian Marriage Act, Section 60 contemplates conditions of marriage, where both the spouses should be Christians and again the bride groom must be over 21 years and the bride should be over 18 years, apart from some other conditions. Part-VI of the said Act contemplates a notice of intended marriage before registration of marriage, filing a copy of the notice to be entered into the marriage notice book, issue a certificate of notice and the oath made thereon, issue an oath before the issue of certificate, the consent of father or guardian and thereafter filing petition for registration. For a false oath, declaration, oath or a certificate for procuring marriage, a penalty is also contemplated under Section 66 of the Act. Hence, a procedure is contemplated for the marriage and for the consequential registration of such marriage and issue of certificates.
15.In terms of Section 3 of the Special Marriages Act, marriage officers are appointed by the Government by notifying in the official gazette. Section 4 contemplates conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages.
Section-5 contemplates notice to intended marriage for a 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 period not less than 30 days immediately preceding the date of such notice. Section 6 contemplates notice book and publication. Section 7 contemplates objection to marriage. Section 8 contemplates procedure on receipt of petition and an enquiry as contemplated by the Marriage Officers in terms of Section 9. Thereafter, the marriage is registered and a certificate could be issued under Section 3. A procedure is also contemplated under Chapter-III for registration of marriages celebrated in other forms.
16.On the above backdrop of the specific provisions, any marriage, which is not solemnized as per the respective provisions of Laws, cannot be recognized as a valid marriage and consequently the same cannot be registered. Further, such marriage registration must be by following the procedures provided under the respective enactments. Under these circumstances, a mere presentation of documents for registration of marriage cannot by itself confer any legal status to the parties and such registration of marriage would be contrary to the procedures provided under the respective enactments.
17.Insofar as the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General as to the Suyamariyathai and Seerthiruththa marriages is concerned, here again, under Section 7-A, the procedure as contemplated under the Section to recognize the marriage alone is dispensed with and made optional. Nevertheless, in terms of Section 8 of the Act, registration is compulsory and must be done only in accordance with Section 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 8 of the Act and the corresponding rules, namely Rule 5 and Form Nos.I and II of the Rules.
18.Of course, Section 22-A of the Act was struck down by the Apex Court on the ground that the term "opposed to public policy" was vague and consequently the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.150, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 22.09.2000 was also quashed by this Court. In our opinion, in terms of Rule 162-A of the Registration Rules, no registration officer shall accept for registration any document or service agreement evidencing bonded labour or transaction constituting any offence under any law or opposed to public policy or morality. Though Section 22-A was struck down on the ground that the power conferred on the Government to direct the Registrars not to register certain documents as opposed to public policy, in the teeth of other conditions, particularly transaction constituting an offence under any law or morality, the registration of marriage agreement without following any of the procedures of the respective enactments cannot be permitted. Of course, knowing the serious implications of registration of such marriage agreements, the Government themselves have come out with a draft amendment proposing to insert Section 21-A in the Registration Act whereby under Section 21-A(3), directing the registering officer not to register any document evidencing any agreement relating to marriage or to live together as husband and wife, etc.
19.Under these circumstances, in order to curtail the 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 misuse of such marriage agreements, whereby the hapless women may also possibly be misused, we deem it necessary that the Registrars and Sub- Registrars under the control of the Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamilnadu, should be restrained from entertaining any marriage agreements produced without following the mandatory provisions of respective enactments and consequently registering them. Accordingly, there will be an order of injunction.”
11. Thus, it is clear that deed of marriage or divorce entered between the parties has no legal sanctity under any of the enactment. Therefore, the registering authorities are restrained from registering any document of marriage or divorce entered between the parties, as it has no legal sanctity under any law. In fact, the deed of mutual agreement produced before this Court is not registered one. Infact as stated supra, it is a fabricated one.
12. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the second respondent and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
13. Pending writ petition, the petitioner filed his objection and the 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 second respondent also issued notice to conduct enquiry on the objections raised by the petitioner. However, the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained and the second respondent is directed to disburse 50 % of the remaining compensation, as directed by this Court in WP(MD)No.8125 of 2021 dated 16.08.2023 in favour of the fifth respondent and her daughter forthwith.
14. The fourth respondent is directed to conduct enquiry with regard to production of the deed of mutual agreement produced by the petitioner herein before this Court and take appropriate action as against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 13.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024
TO:-
1.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2.The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
3.The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Aalangulam Sub-Division, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
4.The Inspector of Police, Pavuruchathiram Police Station, Tenkasi District.
13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sm Order made in W.P.(MD)No.25903 of 2024 Dated:
13.11.2024 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis