Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1083 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-09-08

NIRMAL SINGH, R.L.ANAND

body2000
ORDER R.L. Anand, J. - Kulwant Singh son of Ram Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 15.5.2000, Annexure P-4, with a further prayed that directions be issued to respondent No. 2, i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, to countersign the marriage certificate, Annexure P-1, which was issued by the Registrar of Marriages, as per the instructions of the Govt. dated 22.2.1989. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was married with Hanga Giselinda Hilda as per Sikh rites on 4.11.1999. The marriage was valid, as it fulfilled all the requirements of section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Before submitting any certificate issued by any competent authority to the foreign embassy/High Commission based in India, it is mandatory that the same should be counter signed by Legalisation Department of the Govt. of India situated at Patiala House, New Delhi. The said department certifies the documents to be genuine only if it is countersigned by the concerned State Govt. The State of Punjab had issued instruction No. 13/1/78-OIC(1)/90-101 dated 22.2.1989, directing to the Deputy Commissioners appointed in various districts of the State of countersign the various kinds of certificates detailed in the instructions, which includes the certificate of marriage so that the same could be countersigned by the Govt. of Punjab with purpose of sending it to the Govt. of India. The petitioner was married Hanga Giselinda Hilda and the marriage was registered on 19.11.1999 in the office of the Registrar of Marriages, the petitioner submitted the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, for counter signatures on 22.11.1999. The petitioner had been visiting the office of respondent No. 2 for countersignatures but to no effect. Ultimately, he had to file a writ petition No. 3741 of 2000 in this Court and directions were given by the High Court to respondent No. 2 to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner. In pursuance of the orders, respondent No. 2 passed the order, Annexure P-4, vide which he declined to counter sign the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages. Hence, the present petition. 3. In pursuance of the orders, respondent No. 2 passed the order, Annexure P-4, vide which he declined to counter sign the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages. Hence, the present petition. 3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents and the stand of the respondents is that the marriage of the petitioner with Hanga Giselinda Hilda is illegal as the lady was not an Indian citizen. The marriage of the petitioner with Hanga Giselinda Hilda is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, respondent No. 2 has rightly refused to countersign the marriage certificate. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 5. Section 1(2) of the Act lays down that this Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and applies to Hindus domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who are outside the said territories. As per Section 2, this Act applies to any person who is Hindu by religion in any of its forms or development including Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion. Section (sic) of the Act further lays down that a marriage can be solemnised between two Hindus if the conditions mentioned in that section are fulfilled. 6. The stand taken up by the respondents is that Ms. Hanga Giselinda Hilda was not a Hindu at the time of her marriage with the petitioner Kulwant Singh and, in these circumstances, the certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages is illegal, therefore, the respondent No. 2 was justified in refusing to countersign the marriage certificate. 7. We do not subscribe to the arguments raised by the State. In para-3 of the petition, the petitioner has specifically alleged that both the parties to the marriage were major and the wife of the petitioner adopted the religion of the petitioner before marriage, meaning thereby that wife of the petitioner was, for all intents and purposes, a Hindu and the marriage of the petitioner with Hanga Giselinda Hilda was solemnised according to the provisions of the Act. This averment in para-3 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied by the respondents and, in these circumstances, it has to be inferred that this case of the petitioner has been admitted to be correct. This averment in para-3 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied by the respondents and, in these circumstances, it has to be inferred that this case of the petitioner has been admitted to be correct. Hindu is a broad term. No special ceremony is required to become a Hindu from any other religion. In this view of the matter, this court hold that the marriage between the petitioner and his wife was properly solemnised according to the provisions of the Act and the Registrar of Marriages has issued the marriage certificate in accordance with law and, in these circumstances, respondent No. 2 was duty bound to countersign the same. 8. Resultantly, we allow this writ petition, set aside the impugned order, Annexure p-4 and, directions are given the respondent No. 2 to counter sign the marriage certificate, which is stated to be in his possession, within eight days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. Copy dasti and one copy of the order be sent to respondent No. 2 for compliance. Petition allowed.