Dismissed

S.Vanitha v. the District Registrar

Madras HC14 Dec 2023WA/1390/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging the refusal of the Single Judge to quash a marriage registration certificate. The court agreed with the lower court that cancelling the certificate does not annul the marriage and that the appellant should approach a civil court. Finding disputed facts regarding form submissions and the availability of an administrative appeal remedy, the appeal

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of. Consequently, C.M.P.No.8621 of 2021 is closed. There will be no order as to costs.

S.Vanitha Vs the District Registrar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.No.1390 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.A.No.1390 of 2021

S.Vanitha

.. Appellant

Vs.

The District Collector Villupuram Collectorate Collector Office Road Moovendar Nagar

¶12

Villupuram 605 602.

¶13

The Sub Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar Vallam 604 206.

¶14

U.Raguvaran .. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

¶16

order dated 21.12.2020 made in W.P.No.19371 of 2020.

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.A.No.1390 of 2021

¶20

For the Appellant : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

¶21

For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 & 2

¶22

Mr.C.Uma Shankar for Respondent-3

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶25

We have heard Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.C.Uma Shankar, learned counsel for the third respondent.

¶26

The writ petition was filed challenging the certificate of registration. The learned Single Judge did not entertain the writ petition. However, observed that it is open to the writ petitioner to approach the competent civil Court/Family Court for annulling the marriage. The said order is assailed in the present appeal.

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.A.No.1390 of 2021

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while registering the marriage and/or issuing the marriage certificate, the second respondent is required to adhere to the Rules. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Rules, 2009 has not been adhered to. Memorandum of Registration of Marriage in Form I should be delivered in person or sent to the Registrar, along with the application in Form II within 90 days from the date of marriage. In the present case, Form II was never submitted to the Registrar. In the absence thereof, the marriage could not have been registered. Inter alia, the marriage registration certificate ought to have been set aside.

¶31

Learned Special Government Pleader submits that all the relevant documents were placed before the Registrar and the Registrar, upon satisfaction, has registered the same.

¶32

Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that all

¶33

Page 3 of 7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.A.No.1390 of 2021

¶36

the documents required under the Rules were submitted and thereafter, the marriage was registered.

¶37

We have considered the submissions.

¶38

The learned Single Judge has observed that the writ petition

¶39

is filed five years after the marriage was registered. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that even if the registration certificate is cancelled, the marriage would not get annulled. The appellant/writ petitioner will have to approach the competent civil Court/Family Court for annulling the marriage.

¶40

Moreover, in the present case, it would be a disputed

¶41

question of fact as to whether all the relevant Forms were placed before the Registrar. The Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009, coupled with Rules, 2009 provides for a remedy of appeal.

¶42

We do not find the reasoning of the learned Single Judge to

¶43

Page 4 of 7

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.A.No.1390 of 2021

¶46

be erroneous. In the light of that, we are not inclined to entertain

¶47

the present appeal. With regard to the remedy of appeal, it is for the party to avail the remedy as may be permissible under law and if maintainable.

¶48

The writ appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to

¶49

costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.8621 of 2021 is closed.

¶50

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 14.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶51

kpl

¶52

¶53

The District Collector Villupuram Collectorate Collector Office Road Moovendar Nagar Villupuram 605 602.

¶54

The Sub Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar

¶55

Page 5 of 7

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

W.A.No.1390 of 2021

¶58

Vallam 604 206.

¶59

Page 6 of 7

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.A.No.1390 of 2021

¶62

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(kpl)

W.A.No.1390 of 2021

14.12.2023

___________ Page 7 of 7_

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Vanitha v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vanitha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Krishnan, Vs The District Collector

S.Gowrisankar Vs The District Revenue Officer

K.Karthikeyan Vs The District Collector

Mohammed Sadique Vs Mohammed Dastageer

Roseann Rajan Vs The Superintendent of Police

The General Manager Vs P.Soundarya