Allowed

Evangelin Rhema v. the District Registrar (Admin)

Madras HC6 Dec 2024WP/33042/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition under Article 226 to cancel a Marriage Registration Certificate. The court ruled based on the third respondent's admission that the marriage was registered without the petitioner's physical presence and with no objection to cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The Marriage Registration Certificate in M.No.CMR/Inspector General of Registration/1022/2022 stands cancelled.

Evangelin Rhema Vs the District Registrar (Admin) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.33042 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.33042 of 2024

¶7

Evangelin Rhema ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The District Registrar (Admin), The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Grade Registration Department, District Registrar Office, North Chennai.

¶10

2.The Sub Registrar, (District Registrar Grade) Registration Department, Ambattur.

¶11

3.Prathipan ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 st Respondent to cancel the Certificate of Marriage Registration in M.No. CMR/Inspector General of Registration/1022/2022, S.No.3326/2022 issued by the 1 st Respondent herein, Registered on his file on 07.05.2022 based on the Representation sent by the Petitioner to the 1 st Respondents and the same was forwarded to the 2 nd Respondent on 20.04.2023 within a stipulated period.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Swaminathan.RM

¶14

For R1 and R2 : Mr.C.Sathish Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar

¶15

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

1/6

W.P.No.33042 of 2024

O R D E R

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the 1^st respondent to cancel

¶20

the Certificate of Marriage Registration in M.No.CMR/Inspector General of Registration/1022/2022, S.No.3326/2022 i ssued by the 1^st respondent, registered on his file dated 07.05.2022 based on the representation of the petitioner.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that the Marriage Certificate was obtained by the 3^rd respondent fraudulently by producing bogus document as if, the marriage between the petitioner and 3^rd respondent got solemnised on 07.05.2022. It is asserted by the petitioner that there was no valid solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. The declaration to that effect submitted before the Registering Authority was obtained fraudulently and illegally from the petitioner. It is also stated by the petitioner that she lodged a complaint against the 3^rd respondent before All Women Police Station, Rameshwaram and FIR has been registered against him in Crime No.2 of 2023 under Sections 6 and 5(1) of POCSO Act 2012 read with 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.33042 of 2024

¶25

The contesting 3^rd respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein he

¶26

has stated that the Registration of Marriage was done before the 2^nd respondent without physical presence of the petitioner. He also expressed his no objection for cancellation of Certificate of Marriage issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 07.05.2022. The relevant averment in the counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent reads as follows:-

¶27

“3. I submit that as per the allegation made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in para 5, I met one Pastor namely Dr.P.Ebenezer through my friend and based on the help rendered by his friends I have registered the said marriage before the second respondent without physical appearance of the Petitioner which is challenged before this Hon'ble Court. I completely agreed to cancel the said Certificate of marriage registration issued by the second respondent in M.No.CMR/IGR/1022/2022, S.No.3326/2022 registered on 07.05.2023 on the file of the first respondent without any condition.”

¶28

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 27.11.2024, the 3^rd

¶29

respondent himself was present before this Court and affirmed the averments found in the affidavit.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.33042 of 2024

¶33

In view of the fact that the 3^rd respondent himself admitted that the

¶34

Registration of the Marriage was done without physical presence of the petitioner and also the fact he expressed his no objection for cancellation of Marriage Certificate, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition and the Marriage Certificate in Registration in M.No.CMR/Inspector General of Registration/1022/2022, S.No.3326/2022, dated 07.05.2022 issued by the 1^st respondent stands cancelled. However, it is made clear that this Court is not going into the question whether there was a valid solemnisation of alleged marriage between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. The said question has to be decided only by the Competent Court, if the necessity arises.

¶35

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶36

06.12.2024

¶37

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No dm

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.33042 of 2024

¶41

¶42

1.The District Registrar (Admin),

¶43

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Grade Registration Department, District Registrar Office, North Chennai.

¶44

2.The Sub Registrar, (District Registrar Grade) Registration Department, Ambattur.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

W.P.No.33042 of 2024

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.33042 of 2024

¶51

06.12.2024

¶52

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

¶53

6/6

Evangelin Rhema v. the District Registrar (Admin)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Evangelin Rhema v. the District Registrar (Admin)

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

Dr.Abhijit N Markande, and another Vs Dr.J.Sangumani and another

S.Daniel, Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Denver William Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Somasundaram Vs the Commissioner

P.S.Thangasamy Nadar Vs The Commissioner

P.S.Thangasamy Nadar Vs The Commissioner