BALJIT KAUR BOPARAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 963 : 2006(1) RCR(Civil) 643 : 2006(1) Apex Criminal 359 : (2006)2 SCC 578 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has issued comprehensive directions to the States and the Central Government to take various steps for making the registration of marriages of persons belonging to all religions as compulsory. The reason for issuance of such directions have been recorded in para 15 of the judgment. It has been pointed out that if the record of marriage is kept then, to a large extent, the disputes concerning solemnization of marriages between two persons, are avoided. It would also rescue the woman because non-registration of marriages affects the woman to a greater measure. Registration of marriage furnishes evidence of marriage having been taken place and would provide a rebuttable presumption to that effect. The registration of marriage has a great evidentiary value in the matter of custody of children, right of children born from the wedlock of two person s whose marriage is registered and the age of parties to the marriage. It was for all the aforementioned reasons that Hon'ble the Supreme Court found it in the interest of the society if marriages are made compulsorily registrable. The clue for such a registration has also been provided by Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') when it uses the expression 'for the purpose of facilitating the proof of Hindu marriage'. It was for the aforementioned reason that in para 18, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has issued the following directions :-

(2.) THE aforementioned directions have not yet been complied with by States of Punjab and Haryana as is evident from the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Seema v. Ashwani, (2008)1 SCC 180. The matter is pending and being monitored by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Be that as it may.

(3.) BOTH of them applied to the Registrar of Marriages-cum-Tehsildar, Garhshankar-respondent No. 2 for registration of their marriage. However, he has refused to register the marriage of the petitioners only on the ground that petitioner No. 2 has not completed 21 years of age. As already noticed, petitioner No. 2 would attain the age of 21 years on 27.5.2008. The petitioners have claimed that they are major and their marriage is not void as per the Act.