JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the certificate dated 12th April, 2016 issued by the Arya Samaj Sanstha, Naya Bazar, Purani Mandi, Ajmer and the Marriage Registration Certificate dated 18th April, 2016, issued by the Marriage Registration Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer. 2. The writ petition was heard in presence of the affected parties who were called to find out possibilities of settlement as the girl and the boy are at the very young age thus their future may not be affected due to the litigation. The settlement could not be arrived thus writ petition was heard. 3. The challenge to the certificate issued by the Arya Samaj and also by the Municipal Corporation has been made. The challenge to the certificate issued by the Arya Samaj is mainly on the ground that it was without following the procedure given by Sarvdeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, New Delhi and, otherwise, is in violation of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in the case of Budha Ram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in DB Habeas Corpus Petition No.151/2011, decided vide order dated 21st October, 2011. 4. Accordingly, even the marriage certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation deserves to be set aside. It is also for the reason that the marriage certificate was issued by the Municipal Corporation, Ajmer in absence of the petitioner's daughter who was on duty on 18th April, 2016 yet, recording her presence, certificate was issued which on the face of it, becomes illegal thus may be cancelled. The prayer is accordingly to grant the relief made in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that petitioner's daughter solemnised the marriage with the respondent No.8 at her own. Their marriage took place in Arya Samaj. The certificate was accordingly issued by the Arya Samaj, Naya Bazar, Ajmer followed by a certificate by the Municipal Corporation. An application for marriage certificate was made on 12th April, 2016 i.e. the date of marriage when petitioner's daughter was also present. It was not applied on 18th April, 2016, as alleged, rather, that was the date of preparation of marriage certificate, which was issued subsequently on 22nd April, 2016. Since the marriage took place thus certificate issued in pursuance to it may not be cancelled. It was not applied on 18th April, 2016, as alleged, rather, that was the date of preparation of marriage certificate, which was issued subsequently on 22nd April, 2016. Since the marriage took place thus certificate issued in pursuance to it may not be cancelled. It is moreso when there is no violation of the Rules pertaining to Arya Samaj or judgment of the Division Bench. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the petition. 6. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A challenge to the marriage certificate has been made mainly in reference to the judgment of the Division Bench in Habeas Corpus Petition in the case of Budha Ram Meena. The Division Bench has taken into consideration the Rules applicable to the Sanstha apart from the facts of that case. As per the Rules applicable to the Arya Samaj, a notice was required on the application for performance of marriage which is then to be placed on the notice board. Rule 9 therein was requiring notice to the parents on receipt of the application. The Division Bench even took notice of other provisions applicable therein, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced copy of the Rules applicable to the respondent Sanstha. However, subsequent finding of the Division Bench needs consideration where strong observations have been made against the practice adopted by the Arya Samaj for issuance of marriage certificate. A direction is further given that it should develop proper mechanism and infrastructure to regulate the registration of marriage. 8. In the instant case, serious allegations have been made by the petitioner for obtaining certificate of marriage in absence of petitioner's daughter subsequently from the Municipal Corporation. I find that the certificate was prepared on 18th April, 2016 when petitioner's daughter was on duty at Bharatpur thus could not have remained present at Ajmer. It is, however, submitted that the application for registration of marriage was given on 12th April, 2016 but the respondent No.8 has not produced any document to prove the aforesaid. It is moreso when the certificate was issued on 18th April, 2016 thus what comes is that the marriage certificate was applied and prepared in absence of petitioner's daughter and, otherwise, the Arya Samaj, Ajmer has not controverted the facts about non-adherence of the procedure to be applied for the marriages and issuance of certificates. It is moreso when the certificate was issued on 18th April, 2016 thus what comes is that the marriage certificate was applied and prepared in absence of petitioner's daughter and, otherwise, the Arya Samaj, Ajmer has not controverted the facts about non-adherence of the procedure to be applied for the marriages and issuance of certificates. 9. The case has another aspect. The affected parties are present before the Court. The petitioner's daughter refused about marriage and did not agree to go with the boy who is also present in the Court. On asking, the respondent No.8 Gulshan informed that he is unemployed, however, prayed for recognition of marriage, though, a liberty can be given to the petitioner's daughter to seek divorce. I find that both the parties are at the beginning of their life and if it starts with disputes, it cannot be said to be in fitness of things. The petitioner's daughter is in service, whereas, the respondent No.8 is unemployed, rather, he is preparing for competitive examinations. If the parties would get involved in the litigation, as given by the respondent No.8, for petitioner's daughter to seek decree of divorce, their career would remain at stake. 10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect and when petitioner's daughter is not at all in agreement to live with the respondent No.8 even for a day, the parties should not unnecessarily be dragged in the litigation further. Thus, taking into consideration overall facts of the case, the prayer made in the writ petition is allowed and, accordingly, the marriage certificates issued by the Arya Samaj Sansthan so as the Municipal Corporation are quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.