2.According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has presented a Memorandum for an alleged marriage with the petitioner on 15.05.2014 under the Tamilnadu Registration of Marriage Act. According to the petitioner, there was no marriage between the petitioner and the fourth respondent especially on 15.05.2014 or any other date. In fact, the very registration of the alleged marriage is void for the simple reason that the fourth respondent has stated as a Christian and the petitioner is Hindu and therefore, there cannot be a valid marriage registered between them under the Hindu Marriage Act unless it is registered under the Special marriage Act. Even otherwise, the alleged marriage is said to have been taken place in hindu temple. According to them, such temple was never existed and the marriage took place before the Advocate who was present at the time of marriage. According to the petitioner, she was taken to the registration office and without knowing the implication, she signed in some papers. Since the marriage was solemnized neither under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act, authority ought not to have register the marriage. Duty is also cast upon the Marriage Registrar to verify as to whether any marriage has been taken place and therefore, the marriage registration is wrong. Hence, she filed the writ petition.
