Marriages performed in secrecy in advocates’ chambers and Bar association rooms will not amount to solemnisation within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Madras High Court has held.
Following this ruling, only women victims of such marriages can question it in matrimonial proceedings before the court.
The court has also ruled that no marriage registration could be done without the physical presence of parties to the marriage before the Registrar, except under special circumstances after recording the reasons.
A Division Bench comprising Justices S. Rajeswaran and P. N. Prakash was passing an order on two habeas corpus petitions.
The Bench said it frequently came across habeas corpus petitions by young men contending that the detenu was his wife having married and registered it either with the Marriage Registrar, Chennai North (Joint-I) or Marriage Registrar, Royapuram.
It was also alleged that the parents were keeping the petitioners’ wives in “illegal custody.” In the present cases, the girls said they had not married the petitioners.
In one case, as the place of wedding mentioned in the marriage certificate and the petitioner’s affidavit was different, the Bench appointed a Superintendent of Police, CB-CID as the Enquiry Officer.
In a report, the police official gave the names of 120 advocates who had totally registered 1559 marriages last year in the office of the Registrar, Chennai North (Joint-1.)
Forty-eight advocates had solemnised and registered 1937 weddings in the Royapuram Registrar office last year.
One advocate had solemnised 205 weddings in the G.T. Court Bar Association room last year.
Mr.Justice Prakash observed “It is said marriages are made in Heaven, but to our chagrin we find marriages are being made in advocates’ offices and Bar association rooms.” It was unfortunate for advocates to look upon young boys and girls who fell in love and sought advice, as their potential clients and issue a certificate as if the marriage was solemnised in their office or Bar association room. The MHAA president, R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, submitted that the association would expel those who used the association premises for such solemnisation.
The Bench made it clear that its ruling that secret marriages could not amount to solemnisation, should not be used by males for cutting the nuptial knot, but could be used only by the girls to get liberated from sham marriages of this nature.
It also held that the certificate of solemnisation issued by advocates would not be per se a proof of solemnisation in a matrimonial dispute.
