Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards the conduct of advocates as to whether they are capable of certifying self respect marriages u/s. 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and whether the Suyammariyathai marriage-self-respect marriage can be solemnised in secrecy. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 7A (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu) – Special provision regarding suyamariyathai and seerthiruththa marriages-self respect marriages – Advocates, if cabable of certifying marriages u/s. 7A – Appellant married a girl in accordance with s. 7A and the same was solemnized under the aegis of Advocates and other social workers – Allegation that the girl was detained or restrained against her will by her parents – Habeas corpus petition by the appellant – Dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: It is erroneus to hold that such marriage requires a public declaration and that the marriage conducted in secrecy with few strangers around, be it Suyammariyathai form, would not amount to solemnization, u/ss. 7 and 7-A – To superimpose the condition of a public declaration, which is absent in s. 7A, would narrow the wide import of the statue as also would be violative of the rights u/Art. 21 – Furthermore, it cannot be said that advocates are incapabe of certifying marriage, however, advocates being officers of the Court, should not undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages but can act as witness – On facts, since the girl wishes to reside with the appellant of own freewill, thus, issuance of directon to the respondents to ensure that she joins the appellant – Constitution of India – Art. 21. [Para 6, 8] Judicial Notice – Role of advocates in solemnizing marriages: Held: Advocates or lawyers have many capacities-one being officers of the Court, thus should not, while acting as counsel or advocates, undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages – It would result in advocates chambers or offices turning out to be matrimonial establishment – However, in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses, they can act as witness. [Para 9]
Headnote
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan v. Inspector of Police 2014 (7) MadLJ
651 – disapproved.
S. Nagalingam v. Shivgami (2001) 7 SCC 487; Lata Singh v. State of UP, (2006) 5 SCC 475; Shafin Jahan v. Asokan KM, (2018) 16 SCC 368; Laxmibai Chandaragi B. v. The State of Karnataka (2021) 3 SCC 360 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India.
Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs),
CC BY 4.0.
