Quashed

P.Suchitra v. The Marriage Registrar

Madras HC31 Jan 2017WP/40094/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a marriage certificate issued by a Marriage Registrar for a marriage performed by an advocate in his chambers, relying on prior Division Bench rulings that such secret chambers do not constitute valid solemnisation under the Hindu Marriage Act.

What did the court decide?

Certificate of marriage registered under Sl. No. 1058/2014 was quashed and ordered to be deleted from records; Bar Council of Tamil Nadu directed to take action against the advocate.

P.Suchitra Vs The Marriage Registrar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 31.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P.No. 40094 of 2016

¶6

& W.M.P.No.34141 of 2016

¶7

1 P.Suchitra PETITIONER Vs 1 The Marriage Registrar Chennai-North Joint 1 No. 37 First Floor Walltax Road Chennai 79 2 The District Registrar District Registrars Office Chennai - North 2nd Lane Beach Road Parrys Chennai 1 3 C.Kannappan S/o.G.Chandrabalu No. 30/48 N Block 6th Street Agathir Nagar Villivakkam Chennai 49 4 A.Athithan Advocate (Enrolment No.40/12) No.15 Second Line Beach Road, Parrys Chennai 600 001 5 Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Chennai 600 104 (R-4 & R-5 are suo-motu impleaded as per order dated 15.11.2016 by BRJ in W.P.No.40094/2016) .. Respondents Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in Certificate No.1058 of 2014 dated 19.03.2014 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, ultra vires, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and for consequential orders.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶10

For Respondents 1& 2 : Mr.A.Kumar, Spl.G.P. For Respondent- 4 : Mr.D.Umashankar (Enrol.No.1410 of 2002) For Respondent-5 : Mr.S.T.Masood

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in Certificate No.1058 of 2014 dated 19.03.2014 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, ultra vires, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and for consequential orders.

¶13

This is the case wherein the Advocate should be very much admonished. The practicing advocate office being utilised as a sanctum sanatorium for conducting marriages. The said attitude had been depricated by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 17.10.2014 (in HCP.No.2767 of 2013 & 2141 of 2014) wherein, it has been categorically held that the marriages performed in secrecy in the chambers of Advocates and Bar Association Rooms, will not amount to solemnisation within the meaning of Section 7 and 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶14

Here is the one more case of same nature, wherein it is alleged that the very same advocate who had conducted 219 marriages in his chambers and had issued the certificates for solominisation of such marriages.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had neither given her consent for such marriage nor she had been to the office of the said advocate at all. Learned counsel would also rely on the judgment of the division bench as stated supra.

¶16

Inspite of notice being served and his name having printed in the cause list, none appears for the third respondent. The fourth respondent is represented by Mr.D.Umashankar (Enrol No.1410/2002) would contend that the petitioner's marriage had been conducted in the office of fourth respondent and the petitioner was very much present and that the marriage had been performed as per the customary rights envisaged in Section 7, 7A of Hindu Marriage Act.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had filed the counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition by stating that petitioner being the M.Tech. student had signed in the coloumn against 'wife' in the application forum, when the said marriage was registered as Sl.No.1058/2014. It is further stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent had been performed on 19.03.2014 and the Division Bench judgement is subsequent to the registration of the marriage.

¶19

At this juncture, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the Division Bench order which would read thus:

¶20

"Our declaration of law that, marriages performed in secrecy in the Office of Advocates and Bar Association Roms cannot amount to solemnisation within the meaning of Sections 7 and 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, cannot be used as sword by the males for cutting the nuptial knot cutting the nuptial knot in the matrimonial proceedings, but can be used only by the fair sex to get liberated form sham marriages of this nature. It is further held that the Certificate of Solemnisation issued by Advocates will not be per se proof of solemnisation of Marriage in a matrimonial dispute."

¶21

It is also averred in the Division Bench order that on the complaint made by the concerned party, the Bar Council shall take appropriate action against the Priest-cum-Advocate who had performed the so called marriage. Inspite of the specific direction of the Division Bench, it is noticed that no action had been taken so far against the concerned person especially this marriage is conducted by the advocate who has issued around 219 Certificates which has been specifically pointed out in the Division Bench Judgment.

¶22

Following the judgment of the Division Bench, the proceedings of the first respondent in Sl.No.1058/2014 dated 19.03.2014 is hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to delete, cancell and remove the Sl.No.1058/2014 from the Marriage records maintained in his office. However, this Court is expressing its unhappiness about the way the order of the Division Bench had been taken by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and by seriously viewing the same hereby direct the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take further action against the fourth respondent and shall report the same before this Court.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Post the matter for reporting compliance.

¶25

sd/
Assistant Registrar(CO)
/true copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
smi
To
1 The Marriage Registrar
Chennai-North Joint 1 No. 37 First Floor
Walltax Road Chennai 79
2 The District Registrar
District Registrars Office Chennai - North
2nd Lane Beach Road, Parrys, Chennai 1.
3 Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
Chennai 600 104.
4 The Section Officer,
Writ Section, High Court,
Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.V.Maood, Advocate SR.No.5811
+2cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, advocate SR.No.6111
W.P.No. 40094 of 2016
PVS(CO)
GN(23/02/2017)

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Suchitra v. The Marriage Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Suchitra v. The Marriage Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Sukumaran, Vs The District Collector

R.Rangarajan Vs The Director of Government

Monika, Vs The Sub Registrar

D.Paneerselvam, Vs Secretary

N.Sagayamary, Vs The Revenue Divisional

C. Dhanalakshmi, Vs The District Revenue Officer