E. NATARAJAN Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) E.Natarajan, residing at No.1/109, Aalankudi Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking the production of Maria Prito and to set her at liberty based on his averment that he married Maria Prito on 29.10.2015 and the memorandum of marriage was also registered with the Sub-Registrar, Joint I, in the office of the District Registrar, Trichirappalli; that after the marriage, his wife - Maria Prito went to her parents' house on 03.12.2015 to convey the message that she was pregnant; that thereafter, on the same day at about 10.00 PM, Maria Prito contacted him over cellphone and informed him that the third respondent, who is none other than the father of Maria Prito and her elder sister's husband, had beaten her and were compelling her to cause miscarriage of her pregnancy and that under the said circumstances, she requested the petitioner to rescue her from the custody of the third respondent and the sister's husband of Maria Prito. In this regard, before notice, as ordered by this Court to the third respondent, was served and in particular before steps to serve notice on the third respondent were taken, Maria Prito herself appeared in this Court, not on the date fixed for hearing, but before the said date. On enquiry, this Court entertained a doubt regarding the factum of marriage and also the validity of marriage. This Court also noticed the irregularity committed by the Registering Authority, namely, the Sub Registrar. Hence, the Registering Authority was suo motu impleaded and arrayed as the fourth respondent in the Habeas Corpus Petition. For achieving clarity and to make this order full-fledged order, the entire order passed on 14.12.2015 is re- produced hereunder:-

(2.) Today, after service of notice, the third respondent - S.Arockiasamy @ Xavier is present along with his counsel Mr.D.Rameshkumar. The petitioner - E.Natarajan and his counsel - Mr.S.Titus are also present. Maria Prito is also present. As directed by this Court, the Sub-Registrar, District Registrar's Office, Trichirappalli, Trichy Joint I, who has been impleaded as the fourth respondent by the order of Court, has also come to this Court in obedience to the direction issued by this Court and he has also brought the file relating to the registration of the memorandum of marriage that allegedly took place between the petitioner and Maria Prito. On perusal of the file, we are able to find that the fourth respondent failed to act diligently in verifying the particulars before registering the memorandum of declaration of marriage as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act 2009. Section 7 of the said Act makes it incumbent on the Registering Authority to verify the particulars before registering the memorandum of marriage.

(3.) In the case on hand, the fourth respondent seems to have readily accepted the memorandum, without causing verification of the facts mentioned therein. Though a document, namely, marriage invitation card was produced, such marriage invitation card does not contain the name of the printing press in which it was printed. Furthermore, in serial No.7 of the memorandum of declaration of marriage, which is meant for writing the date of marriage, nothing has been mentioned and the column provided for the same has been left blank. Without even verifying the memorandum as to the vital aspect, namely, the date of marriage, the fourth respondent seems to have registered the memorandum of marriage. Time of registration of the memorandum of declaration of marriage has also not been noted.