Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1072 (RAJ)

Rahul Verma v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-14

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2015
Hon'ble TRIVEDI, J.—The petitioner, in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of directions against the respondent No.2-Jaipur Municipal Corporation to register the marriage of the petitioner under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and to issue a marriage certificate to that effect. He has also prayed to declare that the petitioner is entitled to register his marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in case he is not desirous to register his marriage under Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and that the respondent No.3 i.e. the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jaipur, in absence of Christian Marriage Registrar, is empowered to register the Christian marriages. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner, who had married one Ms. Vanessa Lee Peterson, at the Souvenir Hotel, New Atish Market,, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Mansarovar, Jaipur on 08.12.2014, as per the Christian Customs and Rituals, had approached the respondent No.2-Corporation for registration of his marriage, however the respondent No.2 refused to register the same in view of the provisions contained in Rajasthan Compulsory Marriage Registration Act, 2009. According to the petitioner, he approached the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur IV and also the District Collector-the respondent No.3, for registering his marriage under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, however they also refused to register his marriage, and therefore the present petition has been filed. 3. The petition has been resisted by the respondent/s by filing the reply contending interalia that as per Section 20 of the Rajasthan Compulsory Marriage Registration Act, 2009, the provisions of the said Act do not apply to the marriages solemnized under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and therefore no direction against the respondent No.2 as sought for in the petition could be given. It is further contended that for registration of marriage under the Special Marriage Act 1954, the procedure is already prescribed under the Act, and hence no such declaration or direction sought in the petition could be granted. 4. Learned counsel Ms. Susan Mathew for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is being sent from pillar to post by the respondent authorities for the registration of his marriage, though it is his important right to get his marriage registered. 4. Learned counsel Ms. Susan Mathew for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is being sent from pillar to post by the respondent authorities for the registration of his marriage, though it is his important right to get his marriage registered. According to her, the petitioner has an option to get his marriage registered either under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 or under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the respondent No.2 being the authority under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886, should be directed to register his marriage. Taking the Court to the various provisions of the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as also the Rajasthan Compulsory Marriage Registration Act, 2009, she submitted that the Parliament has enacted the Acts to protect the rights of the citizens and not to cause them inconvenience. 5. However, learned AAG Mr. G.S. Gill for the respondents relying upon the provisions of the said Acts pertaining to the registration of marriages, submitted that the petition in the present form is not maintainable, more particularly when there is no document on record to suggest that the concerned respondents had refused the petitioner to register his marriage. He also submitted that the petitioner so far has not made any application nor followed the procedure as required under the Christian Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act. He submitted that that the Rajasthan Compulsory Marriage Registration Act, 2009 being not applicable to the marriages solemnized under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, the prayers made in the petition could not be granted. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the averments made in the petition, as also the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner had married at Jaipur, as per the Christian Customs and Rituals. His marriage appears to have been solemnized by the Pastor of Cornerstone Church, Jaipur as per the certificate of marriage at Annexure-2 and Baptism Certificate at Annexure-3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there is nothing on record, to show that the petitioner had followed the procedure for registration of his marriage either under the Special Marriage Act or under the Indian Christian Marriage Act. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there is nothing on record, to show that the petitioner had followed the procedure for registration of his marriage either under the Special Marriage Act or under the Indian Christian Marriage Act. The petitioner has made only vague averments in the petition that he had approached the respondent Nos.2 and 3, and that they refused to register his marriage. Hence, in absence of any specific averments as to whether he had made the application and followed the procedure under a particular Act for registration of his marriage, the petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. However, considering the other allegations made and declara-tion sought in the petition, the provisions of relevant Acts are examined. 7. There cannot be any disagreement to the submission made by the learned counsel Ms. Mathew for the petitioner that registration is necessary to protect the marriages and that it is the legal right of the person concerned to get his or her marriage registered under the relevant law applicable to him or her. So far as the Indian Christian Act, 1872 is concerned, Part I of the said Act deals with the provisions as to the persons by whom marriages may be solemnized. There are five categories of persons mentioned in Section 5 who can solemnize the marriage between the persons, one or both of whom is or are a Christian or Christians. The Section 6 of the Act empowers the State Govt. to grant and to revoke the licences to the Minister of Religion to solemnize the marriages within the territories of the State. As per Section 7 thereof, the State Govt. may appoint one or more Christians, either by name or as holding any office for the time being, to be the Marriage Registrar or Marriage Registrars for any district. It further states that where there is only one Marriage Registrar in a district, and such Registrar is absent from such district, or ill, or when his office is temporarily vacant, the Magistrate of district shall act as and be, Marriage Registrar thereof during such absence, illness or temporary vacancy. Section 9 empowers the State Govt. to grant licence to any Christian either by name or as holding any office for the time being, authorizing him to grant certificates of marriage between Indian Christians. Section 9 empowers the State Govt. to grant licence to any Christian either by name or as holding any office for the time being, authorizing him to grant certificates of marriage between Indian Christians. Part II of the said Act deals with the time and place at which marriages may be solemnized, and Part III lays down the procedure for the marriages solemnized by a Minister of Religion licensed the said Act. 8. Further, Part IV of the said Act, pertains to the registration of marriages solemnized by the Minister of Religion. Accordingly as per Section 27 all marriages solemnized in India between the persons one or both of whom professes or profess the Christian religion, except marriages solemnized under Part V or Part VI of this Act, are required to be registered in the manner prescribed in the Part IV of the Act. It appears that Part IV of the said Act applies to the marriages solemnized in India by the Clergymen of Church of England, by Clergymen of Church of Rome or by the Clergymen of Church of Scotland. There is a procedure prescribed in the Part IV as to how the marriages solemnized under the said provisions shall be registered and how the person solemnizing the marriage shall maintain the register and send certificates to the Marriage Registrar, and as to how the Marriage Registrar shall send such certificates to the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Part V of the Act deals with the marriages solemnized by or in presence of a Marriage Registrar. There is also a procedure prescribed for registration of the marriages solemnized in presence of the Marriage Registrar under the said Part V. The present case does not fall either under Part IV or Part V, and therefore the provisions contained therein need not be dealt with in detail, which even otherwise are self explanatory. 9. It appears that the present case would fall under Part VI of the said Act, which deals with the marriages of Indian Christians. Section 60 lays down the conditions on which the marriages of Indian Christians may be certified. Section 61 deals with the grant of certificate by the persons licensed, in whose presence the declaration as required under Section 60 is made, on the application of either of the parties to such marriage and on payment of fees, etc. Section 60 lays down the conditions on which the marriages of Indian Christians may be certified. Section 61 deals with the grant of certificate by the persons licensed, in whose presence the declaration as required under Section 60 is made, on the application of either of the parties to such marriage and on payment of fees, etc. Such certificate granted and signed by such licensed person is received in any suit touching the validity of such marriage as conclusive proof of its having been performed. As per Section 62 of the said Act, every person licensed under Section 9 has to keep a register book in prescribed manner, of all marriages solemnized in his presence under Part VI, and to deposit the true and duly authenticated extracts from his register book of all entries made therein, with the office of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages. 10. From the aforestated provisions it is abundantly clear that it is the person licensed under Section 9, in whose presence the marriage between the Indian Christians has been solemnized, has to issue the certificate, and such certificate is treated as the conclusive proof of the marriage having been performed, in view of Section 61. The said licensed person has to maintain the register book in the prescribed manner and has to deposit the duly authenticated extracts of the said register of all entries made therein with the office of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Thus, the office of Registrar General Births, Deaths and Marriages is neither authorized to register the marriages of Christians solemnized under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 nor is authorized to issue certificate under the said Act. Even as per Section 6 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886, the establishment of general registry, of which the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages is in charge, is established for keeping the certified copies of registers of Births and Deaths registered under the said Act of 1886, or marriages registered under the other Acts including the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. Therefore the submission of Ms. Mathew for the petitioner that the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages appointed under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act, 1886 be directed to register the marriages of Christians solemnized under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, can not be accepted. Therefore the submission of Ms. Mathew for the petitioner that the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages appointed under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act, 1886 be directed to register the marriages of Christians solemnized under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, can not be accepted. It is also pertinent to note that there being special provisions contained in the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 for the registration of marriages solemnized in India between the persons who profess Christian religion, the Rajasthan Compulsory Marriage Registration Act, 2009 is not applicable to the marriages solemnized under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872. In that view of the matter it is held that the marriages which are solemnized in India under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 could be registered as per the procedure laid down in that Act only, as discussed hereinabove. 11. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that so far as registration of the marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is concerned, Section 15 of the said Act states that any marriage celebrated, other than a marriage solemnized under the said Act, may be registered under Chapter III by a Marriage Officer, on the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. Section 3 of the said Act of 1954 states that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint one or more Marriage Officers for the whole or any part of the State. Section 16 of the said Act of 1954 lays down the procedure for registration of marriage under the said Act. 12. It was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 District Collector or anybody who is appointed as the Marriage Officer under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 be directed to register the marriage of the petitioner solemnized under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872,. Since there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had made any application in the prescribed form as required under Section 16 of the said Act of 1954, no such direction could be given to him. It is needless to say that when a procedure is prescribed under the Act, for registration of the marriage, the same needs to be followed, before seeking directions from the court. It is needless to say that when a procedure is prescribed under the Act, for registration of the marriage, the same needs to be followed, before seeking directions from the court. Of course, it is required to be noted that there is no bar contained in the Special Marriage Act, 1954, restricting the right of the Christian to get his/her marriage registered under the said Act, if the conditions mentioned in Section 15 thereof are fulfilled. Therefore it is observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to get his marriage registered after following the procedure laid down under Chapter III of the said Act, 1954. 13. With the aforestated observations, the petition is dismissed.