SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek a direction for registration of their marriage. The petitioners' grievance is that the Registering Officer-respondent No.3, requires the concurrence of the parents of both the parties to the marriage for purposes of registration. Since they have married against the wishes of the parents of petitioner No.1, the contention in the writ petition is that, it will not be possible to secure their presence or concurrence. The insistence for adopting such a course by the Registering Officer is not in accordance with law.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners entered matrimony on 28.02.2013 under Sikh rites and ceremonies at Gurudwara Baba Ajit Singh Ji (Regd.) Dabar Colony, Rahon Road, Ludhiana. The marriage was performed against the wishes of parents of petitioner No.1- wife. According to the petitioners, they fulfill all the legal requirements as to their entitlement for registration of marriage but the marriage registration file has not been accepted by respondent No.3 on the pretext that presence of parents of petitioner No.1-wife is also required. The Supreme Court in the case titled as 'Seema Vs. Ashwani Kumar, 2006 1 RCR(Cri) 963' has issued comprehensive directions to all the States and the Central Government to take necessary steps for making registration of marriages of persons belonging to all religions as a compulsory step. For the purposes of reference, relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:-

(3.) The aforesaid directions issued by the Supreme Court are intended to beneficially effect the society at large which is riled with serious litigation on account of marriages being performed by desirous persons without parental consent. It also erases serious friction in the society on account of interreligious and inter caste marriages. To obviate such unwarranted situations, these directions have necessarily to be strictly adhered to. The reasoning adopted by the respondents that the presence of parents of petitioner no.1 is a must for registration of marriage, if accepted would just defeat the very intent of the intended benefit of the directions given by Supreme Court. But this Court hastens to add that it does not imply that the statutory provisions of law have to be given a go-bye. On the date of application for registration of marriage, if all other requirements of law including parents of petitioner No.2-husband had given their consent and accepted petitioner No.1 as their daughter-in-law and are present before respondent No.3, and are satisfied then the registration of marriage ought not to be refused on any ground except for the ones which are specified in Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. All that is required to be seen is that conditions as contained in Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act are fulfilled. The said conditions are enumerated hereinbelow:-