UPASANA BALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the husband and wife and both are residents of London in the country of United Kingdom and they have preferred this writ petition through their Power of Attorney as the petitioners have faced difficulty in getting registration of their marriage under the provisions of Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2002, which provides procedure for registration of the Hindu marriages. As per Sub-rule(3) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules of 2002, the application for registration of marriage is required to be presented personally before the Registrar concerned and the petitioners personally cannot come to present the application of their registration of marriage for peculiar reasons.

(2.) Petitioner no.1 is citizen of Australia and she was brought up by her maternal grand parents at Australia. She has also obtained Passport from the Australian Government. Petitioner no.2 is citizen of Sweden and has obtained Passport from the competent authority at Sweden. Presently both the petitioners are residing in the United Kingdom because of the fact that petitioner no.2 is in employment at London. The petitioner no.2 being a European citizen having a Swedish Passport is entitled to live and work in United Kingdom, without any restriction as per the European Economic Area Law. According to the petitioners, relevant certification and information with regard to the countries participating in European Economic Area (E.E.A) and the rights of their citizens to stay in United Kingdom can be gathered from the official Website- http: //Ukba. homeoffice.gov.uk/eucitizens/ . The petitioner no.1 being wife of petitioner no.2 has been issued permanent resident Visa of United Kingdom, copy of which has been placed as Annexure-5 with the writ petition. As per petitioners, their marriage was solemnized on 12 th December, 2002, according to Hindi rites and ritual at Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand. Petitioner no.1 after marriage got her surname changed, according to surname of her husband and change of name certificate was issued by the competent authority from Western Australia, copy of which has been placed as Annexure-2.

(3.) The problem came when petitioners desired to visit India , particularly, to Ranchi where the parents of the petitioner no.1, the wife of petitioner no.2, are residing and specially to attend the marriage of the brother of the petitioner no.1, which is to be solemnized in the month of November, 2012. The petitioners, therefore, are in need of getting Passport for their son Mihir Raj Bali, who is entitled to a Passport as a Swedish citizen on account of his father's citizenship but the impediment is that to have Passport issued in his favour the petitioners are required to establish that child's Swedish father was married with his mother and for that purpose a marriage certificate is being demanded by Swedish Consulate. The petitioners also faced difficulty in getting name registration( National I.D.) for their son as it was rejected by the Swedish Tax Agency vide communication dated 29 th June, 2012 on the ground that it considers 'name matters' only for Swedish Citizens resident overseas or people resident in Sweden. It was stated in the said rejection note that child was born in Great Britain and has a foreign national mother and Swedish father. Since it is not evident that the child's Swedish father is married to the child's mother, the Swedish Tax Agency decides that the child is not a Swedish citizen. The petitioners placed on record the copy of the said rejection notice along with translated copy thereof as Annexure-7 and 7/1. The petitioners when inquired about obtaining certificate after registration of their marriage before the Marriage registering authority at Ranchi, they came across the sub-rule(3) of Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2002 and if the said Rule is read literally then it requires personal presence of both the parties to the marriage for submitting the application for registration of the marriage. The petitioners' family is unitary family and they do not have anybody who can take care of their only 8 months old child. Petitioners also cannot bring the child as the child cannot get Passport without petitioners' marriage certificate which can be issued only by Marriage Registering authority from Ranchi in India. Therefore, petitioners can present their application for registration of their marriage through their Power of Attorney which they have executed in favour of petitioner no.1's mother-Smt.Nandini Gupta. The petitioners are informed that, for presentation of application for the registration of their marriage, their personal presence is essential.