Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2308 (ALL)

Nainsee v. State of U. P.

2015-08-10

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. Heard leaned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners are claiming protection to their married life alleging unnecessary interference and harassment by respondent no.4 despite their registered marriage. 3. Petitioners who have filed this petition jointly with the joint affidavit enclosing a photocopy of the marriage certificate dated 27th July 2015 issued by the Registrar, Hindu Marriages, Basti. 4. The marriage certificate mentions12th May 1995 as the date of birth of petitioner no. 1. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 a copy of High School mark sheet of petitioner no. 1 has been enclosed which mentions her date of birth as 16.5.1998. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts the above High School certificate that the date of birth as mentioned therein to be correct. 7. In view of the above High School certificate the date of birth of the petitioner is 16.5.1998 and not 12.5.1995 as mentioned in the marriage certificate.Therefore, petitioner no. 1 is a minor not entitle to marry legally. 8. The Registrar, Hindu Marriages, Basti is present in the Court. He submits that the office was satisfied about the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 in view of her own affidavit and the Adhar Card produced by her which mentions her date of birth as 12.5.1995. 9. The Adhar Card can not be a conclusive proof regarding the age of any person. 10. The best evidence regarding the age of any person is the certificate of birth Registration under the Deaths and Births Registration Act, 1969 and in the absence of the same, it is the High School certificate which is ordinarily accepted to be most common mode of proof of age/date of birth of any person. 11. It is only in case these two certificates are not available for any reason that the Sub-Registrar may fall upon any other evidence in determining the marriageable age of the parties before registering their marriage. 12. The Sub-Registrar had not cared to insist for the best proof regarding the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 and has not even recorded his satisfaction in this regard before placing reliance upon the other documents produced by the petitioners for getting their marriage registered. 13. 12. The Sub-Registrar had not cared to insist for the best proof regarding the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 and has not even recorded his satisfaction in this regard before placing reliance upon the other documents produced by the petitioners for getting their marriage registered. 13. This apart, Rule 4 (3) of the U.P. Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973 provides that the application for registration of marriage shall be accompanied by a certificate of a Member of Parliament, Member of State Legislative, Gazetted Officer, Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, Sarpanch Pramukh of Nyaya Panchyat, Pramukh of Kshetrya Samiit or the President of any other local body. 14. The application for registration of marriage as moved by the petitioners, the original of which has been produced before me by the Sub-Registrar does not contain certificate of any of the above authorities. In these circumstances, the Sub-Registrar was completely in error in registering the said marriage. 15. In view of the above, the certificate of marriage which has been filed as anneuxre 3 to the petition can not be relied upon and since as per the High School certificate as the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 16.5.1998, she is certainly a minor who has not completed 18 years of age on the date of marriage or even today. 16. The parents of petitioner no. 1 namely Raj Kumar and Smt. Meera are present in the Court. They have been identified by their counsel Jitendra Kumar. The custody of petitioner no. 1 is directed to be given to them. She will remain with them till she attains the marriageable age whereupon she may decide to live with petitioner no. 2. 17. The effect of marriage certificate dated 27.7.2015 shall remain in abeyance till petitioner no. 1 attains majority whereupon it would be voidable upon her option. The Sub-registrar shall make an endorsement to this effect in his record. 18. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. Petition disposed of.