Chattisgarh High Court
Akshay Sharma vs Collector on 22 September, 2022
1
FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022
• Akshay Sharma S/o Shri Mahesh Aged About 28 Years R/o
Jamnotri, Gokul Chandrama Mandir Road, Budhapara, Sattibazar,
Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• Collector, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
(Marriage Officer, Raipur City, Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Pranjal Agrawal with Ms.
Vidhi Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent/ State : Shri D.C. Verma, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
22/09/20 22 Heard.
1. The peculiar circumstances of this case gave rise to filing of this appeal against the order dated 22.07.2022 ( Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur wherein an application preferred by the appellant for 2 FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022 registration of his marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was rejected by suggesting the appellant to approach the 'choice centre' to get marriage registered under the C.G. Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2006 (henceforth referred to as ' Rules of 2006 ')
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the C.G. Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2006 was framed under a specific object pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Seema V. Ashwani Kumar 1 . He would submit that reading of the said Rules over and above Special Marriage Act, 1954 (henceforth referred to as ' Act of 1954 ') would be completely misplaced, as the Act of 1954 is a code in itself, which provides for registration of marriage and no nexus to the Rules of 2006. He would therefore submit the right which is created under a statute cannot be delegated to such Rule of 2006 as the certificate issued under the Act of 1954 has a special significance which has its footing in different international forums. During the course of hearing, he placed on record a certificate of marriage issued under the Act of 1954 by the Court of Collector & Special Marriage Officer, Bilaspur in the State of C.G. and submits that accordingly the marriage certificate should have been issued as the appellant and the lady to whom he married are entitled under the Act of 1954 to 1AIR 2006 SCC 1158:: 2006 (2) AIR Bom R 783 3 FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022 get a certificate. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is completely mis-placed by not appreciating the actual law involved in the subject issue.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that for registration of marriage, the Rules of 2006 have been framed by the State of C.G. and the appellant can very well apply under that law. He further submits that application for registration of marriage filed by the appellant has not been refused but it has been referred to apply before the choice centre to get a certificate of marriage under Municipal Laws. He further submits that there is no adverse order against the appellant, consequently, this appeal has no merit.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders both of the learned Family court and also the order passed by the learned Marriage Officer, Raipur dated 22.10.2021.
5. Perusal of the records would show that an application was field by the appellant for registration of marriage under the Act of 1954.
6. Section 16 of the Act of 1954 purports that on receipt of the application signed by both the parties to the marriage for the registration of their marriage under the Chapter the Marriage Officer should give public notice and thereafter after following the procedure which is laid down under Section 15 enter a certificate of marriage in the Marriage Certificate 4 FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022 Book, thereafter, the procedure would be completed. The effect of registration of marriage is described under section 18 of the Act of 1954 which purports that when a certificate of marriage is finally entered in the Marriage Certificate Book under this Chapter, the marriage shall, as from the date of such entry, be deemed to be a marriage solemnized under the Act of 1954.
7. For sake of brevity Sections 16 and 18 of the Act of 1954 is reproduced herein under:-
" 16. Procedure for registration.―Upon receipt of an application signed by both the parties to the marriage for the registration of their marriage under this Chapter the Marriage Officer shall give public notice thereof in such manner as may be prescribed and after allowing a period of thirty days for objections and after hearing any objection received within that period, shall, if satisfied that all the conditions mentioned in section 15 are fulfilled, enter a certificate of the marriage in the Marriage Certificate Book in the form specified in the Fifth Schedule, and such certificate shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and by three witnesses
18. Effect of registration of marriage under this Chapter.―Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 24, where a certificate of marriage has been finally entered in the Marriage Certificate Book under this Chapter, the marriage shall, as from the date of such entry, be deemed to be a marriage solemnized under this Act, and all children born after the date of the ceremony of marriage (whose names shall also be entered in the Marriage Certificate Book) shall in all respects be deemed to be and always to have been the legitimate children of their parents:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be construed as conferring upon any such children any rights in or to the property of any person other than their parents in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such children would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of their not being the legitimate children of their parents. "
8. The appellant who got married to Pooja Sharma filed 5 FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022 an application before the Marriage Officer under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in a given format. At that juncture, the Marriage Officer has passed order dated 22.10.2021, wherein it was observed that in State of C.G. Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2006 is in operation and according to it the Municipal Corporation through its choice centre issues the marriage certificate. This necessarily forced us to lay hands to the Rules of 2006.
9. Perusal of the Rules of 2006 would show that it was notified under 13401/21-Vetting/C.G./06 dated 20th November, 2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by entry 5 and 30 of List III and most popularly known as C.G. Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2006.
10. Rules of 2006 were framed pursuant to the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Seema (Supra). Perusal of the judgment would show that the direction to frame rules was with a specific object. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the record of marriage is kept, to a large extent, the dispute concerning solemnization of marriages between two persons is avoided. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was in agreement with the submission of National Commission for Women that non- registration of marriages affects the women to a great measure. It further observed that if the marriage is registered it also provides evidence of the marriage having taken place 6 FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022 and would provide a rebuttable presumption of the marriage having taken place. The court further observed though the registration itself cannot be a proof of valid marriage per se, and would not be the determinative factor regarding validity of a marriage yet it has a great evidentiary value in the matters of custody of children, right of children born form the wedlock of the two person whose marriage is registered and the age of parties to the marriage. Therefore, it was observed that being so, it would be in the interest of the society if marriages are made compulsorily registrable.
11. Accordingly Hon'ble Supreme Court directed in para 18 as under:-
" 18. Accordingly, we direct the States and the Central Government to take the following steps:
(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 States shall issue appropriate notification bringing the Rules into force.
(ii) The officer appointed under the said Rules of the States shall be duly authorized to register the marriages. The age, marital status (unmarried, divorcee) 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.
7FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022
(iv) Learned counsel for various States and Union Territories shall ensure that the directions given herein are carried out immediately. "
12. It is under those background, the Rules of 2006 came into being. The object of such rules being promulgated was in the specific background of the fact that certain problem in the Society was being faced. Therefore, in order to arrest the same, the rules were framed. The Rules of 2006 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 operates completely in different field. Section 16 of the Act of 1954 speaks about registration of marriage in the Marriage Certificate Book and the registration effect is also being stated at Section 18 of the Act of 1954. The orders of both the Marriage Officer as also the learned Family court would show that they have amalgamated the object of Act of 1954 and Rules of 2006 resulting into the denial of the certificate under the Act of 1954. The Act of 1954 being a statute and complete code in itself, the said power cannot be made redundant by the rules of 2006 and Section 16 of the Act of 1954 would operate independently in respect to the right of the parties. Therefore, referring the registration issue under the Act of 1954 to a choice centre would literally make section 16 of the Act of 1954 as porus and non-effective which is not the intent of the legislation. Furthermore by framing of the Rules of 2006 the Central Act of 1954 cannot be superseded. The clause 16 of the Rules of 2006 takes into sweep that those rules are in addition to and not in derogation 8 FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022 of other laws for the time being enforced. Therefore, the Rules of 2006 framed by C.G. would not have a domino effect to the operation of section 16 of the Act of 1954. Therefore, the object of clause 16 of the Rules of 2006 is not in conflict with the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
13. In a result, we allow this appeal and set aside the orders of both learned Family court and the Marriage Officer under the Act of 1954. It is directed that the application filed by the petitioner under the Act of 1954 shall be dealt in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1954. The appellant may appear before the Special Marriage Officer on 12th October, 2022 thereafter within a period of 60 days from the date of appearance, the necessary orders will be passed in accordance with the law.
14. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Jyoti
9
FA(MAT) No. 161 of 2022
HEADNOTE
(FA MAT No. 161 of 2022)
C.G. Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2006 will not have a domino effect over the operation of Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
NRrhlx<+ fookg dk vfuok;Z iath;u fu;e] 2006 fo'ks"k fookg vf/kfu;e 1954 dh /kkjk 16 ds izorZu ij vf/kHkkoh izHkko ugha j[ksxkA