Disposed

Munavara, v. the District Registrar

Madras HC22 Apr 2014WP(MD)/6471/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, without adjudicating merits, directed the Sub Registrar to consider the petitioner's representation under Section 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 regarding a delayed application to register a decree of dissolution of Muslim marriage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation under Section 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Munavara, Vs the District Registrar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

MUNAVARA

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :22.04.2014 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.6471 of 2014

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT SIVAGANGAI.

¶9

2.THE SUB REGISTRAR / SPECIAL MARRIAGE OFFICER, ILAYANGUDI SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to direct the 2nd Respondent to register the Decree in O.S.No.68 of 2012 dated 30.11.2012 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 02.04.2014.

¶11

For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai For Respondents ... Mr.S.Gunasekar, Government Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The writ petition has been filed praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to direct the 2nd Respondent to register the Decree in O.S.No.68 of 2012 dated 30.11.2012 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 02.04.2014.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶15

3.In the affidavit, it has been stated that the Petitioner married one Mr.Muhammed Yusuf, S/o.Abdullah. After the marriage, the petitioner was residing along with her husband and in-laws at door No.3/2, Ismail Street, Salaiyur, Ilayangudi and now, she is temporarily residing at Malaysia, Penang, Pular 10200. The above said marriage was solemnized on 10.10.2011 as per the Muslim Religious Rights and Customs. The marriage was registered by the Salaiyur Local Muslim Jamath. After the marriage, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her husband tortured and harassed the petitioner and therefore, the above said marriage was nullified before the jamathars on 13.09.2012. In this regard, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of 2012, praying for

¶16

¶17

dissolution of marriage and that suit was decreed on 30.11.2012 as prayed for. The petitioner received a copy of the decree on 02.01.2014. After receiving the decree, the petitioner applied before the second respondent on 20.01.2014 with relevant documents for registration of the same. But the second respondent rejected her application on the ground that the time limit for registration of the said decree is barred. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation before the second respondent on 02.04.2014, who is the appellate authority. Since no action has been taken sofar, she has come forward with this writ petition.

¶18

4.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said suit was decreed on 30.11.2012. The petitioner applied for the certified copy of the said decree on 03.12.2013; Copy was made ready on 02.01.2014 and the same was received on 03.01.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for registration of the decree before the second respondent with relevant documents and the same was rejected on the ground that it was time barred.

¶19

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Section 25 of the Registration Act, 1908, if there is any delay in presentation of the document, the authorities by imposing a fine, not exceeding 10 times the amount of the registration fees, shall accept such document for registration and therefore, a direction may be given to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of Section 25 of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶20

6.Keeping the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is constrained to pass the following order.

¶21

7.This Court, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 02.04.2014, in the light of Section 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

8.The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT SIVAGANGAI.

¶26

2.THE SUB REGISTRAR / SPECIAL MARRIAGE OFFICER, ILAYANGUDI SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶27

+1 CC to Mr.Na.Palaniyandi, Advocate Sr.No.24494

¶28

+1 CC to the Spl.Govt.Pleader Sr.No.24751

¶29

vs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ NA/22/05/2014/P2/5C

Munavara, v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munavara, v. the District Registrar

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

A. Noor Mohamed Vs the Principal Chief

Vinothkumar Vs the Tahsildar

A.Mytheen Mathar, Vs the District Collector

R. Gunasekaran Vs the District Collector

M/S. the Parvatha Corporation Vs the Commissioner

Rose Mary Educational Society, Vs the Member Secretary