Allowed

Umesh Girish Arvind Pujari v. Registering Authority Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation Jalgaon and Another

Bombay HC1 Aug 2017WP/1010/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Circular requiring Priest/Purohita to act as witnesses for marriage registration. The court held the provision lacked statutory authority, was arbitrary, and caused hardship to religious officiants.

What did the court decide?

The condition in the Circular requiring a Priest/Purohit to attend the Registrar's office as a witness is quashed and set aside.

Umesh Girish Arvind Pujari Vs Registering Authority… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 WP-1010-17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1010 OF 2017

¶4

Umesh @ Girish Arvind Pujari,
Age : Major, Occ. Pujari,
Near Kalaram Mandir,
Northern Door, Panchavati,
Nashik – 422 003

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1. Registering Authority,
 Jalgaon City Municipal
 Corporation, Jalgaon

¶8

2. The State of Maharashtra

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr.Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.Pradip R. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.2

¶11

 CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND
 SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶12

 RESERVED ON : JULY 20, 2017
 PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 01, 2017

¶13

JUDGMENT (PER SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.)

¶14

Rule, returnable forthwith. With the

¶15

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties,
heard finally.

¶16

2 WP-1010-17

¶17

2.The petitioner has sought quashment of

¶18

the Circular issued by respondent no.1 – Registrar
of Marriages, appointed under the Maharashtra
Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of
Marriages Act, 1998 (“the Act”, for short), to the
extent it mandates presence of Priest/Purohit, who
performs marriage, to remain present before the
office of the Registrar of Marriages at the time
of registration of marriage for signing the
memorandum of marriage in his presence only, as a
witness to the marriage.

¶19

3.The petitioner is working as a Purohit.
He is performing all religious activities in
Kalaram Temple at Nashik, including performance of
necessary rites and ceremonies for solmanization
of marriages.

¶20

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that as per the provisions of Clause (b),
sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, the

¶21

3 WP-1010-17

¶22

parties and three witnesses to the marriage shall

¶23

appear in person before the Registrar of Marriages
for signing the memorandum of marriage. There is
no provision in the Act mandating presence of

¶24

Priest/Purohit who performs necessary rites/
ceremonies for solmanization of marriage. He
further submits that the petitioner being Purohit
has to perform necessary rites and ceremonies in
various marriages that take place in Kalaram
temple at Nashik as well as in different temples
or places. It would be highly difficult for him
to attend the office of the Registrar of Marriages
to sign the memorandum of marriage, as witness in
connection with each and every marriage performed
with his assistance. It would create a great
hardship for him to attend the offices of
Registrars of various Districts where the parties

¶25

to marriages wish to register their marriages. He,
further, submits that if the petitioner is made to
attend the offices of the Registrars of Marriages,

¶26

4 WP-1010-17

¶27

he would be required to spend a number of days in
visiting the offices of Registrars of Marriages
and in that event, he would not be in a position
to attend his religious functions in the temples

¶28

or other place, through which he earns for his
livelihood. He, therefore, submits that the
condition in the Circular issued by respondent
no.1 making it compulsory for the Priest/Purohit

¶29

to attend the office of Registrar of Marriages as
a witness for signing the memorandum of marriage,
may be quashed and set aside.

¶30

5.The learned Counsel appearing for

¶31

respondent no.1 submits that in order to rule out

¶32

the possibility of registration of fake marriages,

¶33

respondent no.1 thought it fit to insist upon
presence of the Priest/Purohit, who assisted in
performance of the marriage. He, therefore,
supports the above-referred condition in the
Circular.

¶34

5 WP-1010-17

¶35

6.As per Section 6 of the Act, it is the

¶36

responsibility of the husband to present, within a
period of 90 days from the date of solmanization
of marriage, a memorandum in the prescribed form,
before the Registrar of Marriages within whose
jurisdiction, the husband ordinarily resides or
where either of the parties resides. As per Clause
(b), sub-section (1) of Section 6, the parties and
three witnesses to the marriage shall appear in
person before the Registrar of Marriages and sign
the memorandum. There is no requirement under any
of the provisions of the Act requiring presence of

¶37

Priest/Purohit, who assisted the parties in
performing the marriage, before the Registrar of
Marriages, as a witness for signing the memorandum
of marriage.

¶38

1955 reads as under :-

¶39

7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.- (1)
A Hindu marriage may be solemanized in

¶40

6 WP-1010-17

¶41

accordance with the customary rites and
ceremonies of either party thereto.

¶42

(2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptpadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.

¶43

The above-mentioned provisions do not show that
presence of the Priest/Purohit is essential for
performing the rites/ceremonies for solmanization
of marriages. It is, thus, clear that it is the

¶44

matter of faith or volition of the parties to the
marriage, to take assistance of Priest/ Purohit
for solmanization of their marriage.

¶45

8.It is a common knowledge that there are
certain schools of thoughts and communities, which
do not take assistance of any Priest/Purohit for
performance of marriages. For example: the
followers of 'Satyashodhak Samaj' do not engage

¶46

7 WP-1010-17

¶47

any Priest/Purohit for performance of marriage. If

¶48

that be so, it would be difficult for the
followers of such schools of thought, to ensure
presence of Priest/Purohit before the Registrar of
Marriages for getting their marriage registered.

¶49

9.In the present case, the petitioner

¶50

ordinarily performs the rites and ceremonies for
solmanization of marriages in Kalaram temple at

¶51

Nashik and the nearby places. According to him, he
assists in performing a number of marriages. If
that be so, it would certainly be difficult for
him to quit his place of working for attending the
Offices of Registrars of Marriages at various
places away from Nashik for signing as a witness
to the memorandums of marriages. He would be

¶52

required to spend a lot of time and money for
visiting those places. His absence from his place
of working would certainly hamper his daily work,
which would adversely affect on his source of
livelihood. All these difficulties should have

¶53

8 WP-1010-17

¶54

been anticipated by respondent no.1 while

¶55

incorporating the condition in the Circular making
it compulsory for the Priest/Purohit to attend his
office as a witness to the marriage for signing

¶56

the memorandum of marriage. There is absolutely no rational behind imposing the said condition. The said condition is not in consonance with the provisions of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. It is ex-facie arbitrary. Consequently, it is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶57

10.In the result, we pass the following

¶58

order :-

¶59

(i)The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶60

(ii)The condition imposed by respondent no.1

¶61

in the Circular requiring presence of the

¶62

Priest/Purohit as a witness to the marriage for
signing of memorandum of marriage in the presence
of respondent no.1, is quashed and set aside.

¶63

9 WP-1010-17

¶64

(iii) Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶65

(iv) No costs.

¶66

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶67

kbp

Umesh Girish Arvind Pujari v. Registering Authority Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation Jalgaon and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Girish Arvind Pujari v. Registering Authority Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation Jalgaon and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Shriram Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Surekha Pundlik Wagh Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar and Ors.

Kiran Bhikan Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its Secretary G B Sbanis Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Syed Ashfaq Syed Vazir Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammed Basit Ansari Riyasat Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others