The issue of advocates donning the role of priests and solemnising love marriages in secrecy has cropped up once again with a third-year engineering student approaching the Madras High Court Bench here, alleging that a youngster claimed her to be his wife on the basis of records created through fraudulent means.
The petitioner, C. Sreelekha (name changed) of Sivaganga, stated that she visited a Sub- Registrar’s office in Dindigul district on August 22 at the invitation of the youngster to be a witness to registration of his marriage and signed the relevant documents. Days later, she was shocked to find that the youth had obtained her signature in the space meant for bride.
Claiming that she began making enquiries with the Sub-Registrar’s office only after the youngster forced her to agree for a matrimonial relationship, the 21-year-old woman said her enquiries revealed that the registration was done on the basis of a certificate issued by an advocate that their marriage had been solemnised at a Self-Respect Marriage Centre.
Asserting to have not married the youngster under any circumstances, the girl urged the court to quash the registration records. Arguing the case before Justice B. Rajendran, her counsel S. Srinivasa Raghavan pointed out that the petitioner’s case would fall under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, since she and the youth belonged to the same community and even caste.
He pointed out that writing a judgement for a Division Bench of the High Court on October 17, Justice P.N. Prakash had criticised lawyers for donning the role of priests. The Division Bench had also said that though the Hindu Marriage Act permitted Suyamariyathai (self-respect) marriages, they were legally valid only when performed publicly. A marriage between two Hindus could not be registered by a Sub-Registrar unless solemnised either according to customary practices or through self-respect procedures.
Convinced with his arguments, prima facie, Mr. Justice Rajendran ordered notice to the Sub-Registrar at Nagalnaickenpatti and the youngster hailing from Melur and directed the petitioner’s counsel to include the lawyer, who had reportedly solemnised the marriage, as one of the respondents in the case.
