AMI RANJAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby writ petition i.e. CWP No.20480 of 2020, filed by the petitioner-appellants seeking quashing of the order/letter dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure P-12) issued by the Deputy Collector-cum-Marriage Officer, Gurugram, has been dismissed and it has been held that there is no provision for registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act1) without parties appearing in person before the marriage officer.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-appellant No.1 (Ami Ranjan) was working as IT Consultant at Publicist Sapient in London (United Kingdom) since 2017. Petitioner-appellant No.2 (Misha Verma) is USA citizen of Indian origin and has been living in USA. She is employed at Virginia University School of Medicine as Resident Doctor. The appellants solemnized marriage on 07.12.2019 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the presence of their respective families at Gurugram (Haryana). After marriage, both of them returned back to their respective work places in United Kingdom and United States on 10.12.2019 and 15.12.2019 respectively. An application for registration of their marriage was filed before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Marriage Officer, Gurugram on 29.01.2020. A request was made to the Marriage Officer to permit appellant-petitioner No.2 to appear through video conference for the purpose of moving the application for registration of marriage. The Marriage Officer called the appellants to appear before him on 03.04.2020. In the meantime, due to spread of COVID-19 Pandemic, the appellants could not return India. Even, the Government of India had imposed a nation wide lock-down on 24.03.2020. Due to this reason, appellant No.1 made an application dated 07.08.2020 to the Marriage Officer with a request that the second motion hearing may also be conducted through video conference. This request was rejected vide letter/order dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure P-12).

(3.) It was pleaded that appellant No.2 is a medical professional and she has been put on COVID-19 emergency duty in United States. Appellant No.1 can go to USA to meet his wife, but for that purpose he has to attach a marriage certificate along with an application for obtaining VISA. In this backdrop, on account of lack of marriage certificate, parties are facing unprecedented hardship.