HC pulls up Sub Registrar

Image
Press Trust of India Madurai
Last Updated : Dec 18 2015 | 9:22 PM IST
The Madras High Court bench here today pulled up a Sub Registrar for not following appropriate procedure while issuing a marriage certificate for a couple belonging to religions.
Justices P R Sivakumar and S Vaidyanathan, who asked the Sub Registrar of Tiruchirappalli to appear and see the documents produced by the husband and asked "how did you accept this memorandum of declaration of marriage, which did not contain the name of the priest who performed the marriage rites and the wedding invitation which did not contain the name of the printing press.
The Judges also said that departmental action should be taken against him for providing the marriage certificate without following any procedure. In the meanwhile the Sub Registrar Deivasigamani should not be permitted from now to handle marriage registration and posted to another wing of the registration department.
The Judges who were hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the husband and closed the HCP today and allowed the girl to go anywhere she liked as she was a major.
Arockiasamy, the father woman Mario Printo, said the petitioner Nataraj had cheated his daughter and married her. But Mario prito denied she was cheated.
Earlier the court said the couple had got married in a temple and produced the memorandum of declaration of marriage. Accepting it the sub registrar had issued the certificate of registration without verifying if it was valid or not.
As per Hindu law the marriage in a temple was not valid if one of the couple belongs to Christian religion and she continued to be so. The marriage was also not solemnised as per Indian Christian Marriage Act.
For such a couple there was a special marriage act, under which parties intending to solem solemnize their marriage should give notice in the prescribed form to the District Marriage Officer.
One of them should have resided in the district for more than 30 days. The notice would be recorded in marriage notice book.
Objection could be raised within 30 days and only after this period, could the marriage be solemnised.
In this case the sub registrar should have directed the couple to approach the Marriage officer. But he did not do so and issued certificate accepting declaration, the HC said.
The husband had levelled wild charges against his father in-law as if he was illegally detaining her. The petition had been filed as if the marriage was valid. Notice was ordered to the father in law, but No step taken to issue it to him.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Dec 18 2015 | 9:22 PM IST

Next Story