ILAVARASAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, with their consent.

(2.) The brief facts are that the appellant had preferred a habeas corpus proceeding, alleging that he had married Mathithra in accordance with Sec. 7A of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same was solemnized under the aegis of Advocates and other social workers. He had alleged that she had been forcibly taken away, coerced into marrying her maternal uncle, after which she was restrained at the behest of her parents. The appellant alleged that Mathithra was detained or restrained against her will. The High Court dismissed the petition and recorded comments adverse to the conduct of Advocates, stating that they are incapable of certifying marriages under Sec. 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu). The appellant, aggrieved by the impugned order, has approached this Court.

(3.) This Court had by its order dtd. 4/8/2023 directed that the concerned District Legal Services Authority to facilitate recording the statement of the alleged victim, Mathithra. Pursuant to the directions, the concerned Legal Services Authority and the District Judge, Ramanathapuram facilitated the process. The report furnished by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu was forwarded by the District Judge, through letter dtd. 12/8/2023. The report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority pertinently states as follows: