Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8234 MP

                              1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                  ON THE 22th OF JUNE, 2022

              WRIT PETITION NO.13785 OF 2022

      Between:-

1.    RAHUL S/O SHRI RAM KRISHAN,
      AGED : 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION :
      PRIVATE JOB, R/O WARD NO. 14,
      PHAD KA PURA, BANMORE,
      DISTRICT : MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH).
2.    RANI D/O SHRI PATIRAM W/O
      RAHUL, AGE      :  20 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION : HOUSEWIFE, R/O
      WARD NO.14, PHAD KA PURA,
      BANMORE, DISTRICT : MORENA
      (MADHYA PRADESH).
                                         ........PETITIONERS

      (BY SHRI ABHISHEK PARASHAR - ADVOCATE)

      AND

1.   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
     THROUGH             PRINCIPAL
     SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
     HOME,     GOVERNMENT       OF
     MADHYA PRADESH, VALLABH
     BHAWAN,    BHOPAL    (MADHYA
     PRADESH).
2.   SHO,   POLICE     STATION   :
     BANMORE, DISTRICT : MORENA
     (MADHYA PRADESH).
                                            2

3.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
      MORENA, DISTRICT : MORENA
      (MADHYA PRADESH).
4.    SHRI PATIRAM, R/O WARD NO.14,
      PHAD KA PURA, BANMORE,
      DISTRICT : MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH).
5.    ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR, LOHA
      MANDI, KILA GATE, GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH) THOUGH ITS
      SECRETARY.
                                                            ........RESPONDENTS

        (BY SHRI N.S. TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                       ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) That the respondents no.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to provide necessary police protection to the petitioners in the interest of justice.

ii) That, the respondents no.1 to 3 may kindly be directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners on the basis of false complaints made by the Respondent no.4 or the family members of the petitioner no.2/social elements.

iii) That the action of the respondent no.4 and other anti-social elements threatening the petitioners and interfering in this wedded life may kindly be declared to be illegal, null and void and consequently they be restrained from making such an act.

iv) That, the cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the

circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioners."

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major. They have performed marriage in the Arya Samaj Mandir. In view of the Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937, the marriage is valid one. Even otherwise, they are majors and are free to live their life as per their wishes.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that Arya Samaj Mandir has no authority to issue marriage certificate.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The Supreme Court by order dated 4/4/2022 passed in the case of Secretary, Madhya Bharat Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., SLP (Civil) No.5315/2022 has held that the Arya Samaj Mandir can perform marriage strictly in accordance with Annexure P/5 annexed with the SLP. As per Annexure P/5, which has been filed alongwith SLP(Civil) No.5315/2022, Arya Samaj Mandir has laid down the following conditions:-

1. Entire terms and conditions envisaged under Hindu marriage act be strictly complied with.

2. It be ensured that age of bride should not be less than 18 years and the age of bridegroom should not be less than 21 years. In this regard, age for marriage be determined by perusing date of birth as mentioned in Marks-sheet of Class 5 or class 10 or by perusing true copy of date of birth certificate. In case aforesaid document is not available then ate certificate duly issued by Government Doctor (Radiologist) be received.

3. Both parties wish to perform marriage voluntarily, such certificate executed on stamp

paper and duly attested by notary be received.

4. It is compulsory for both the parties to present joint application for marriage, which must be signatures of both parties and signature of at least one appropriate witness from the side of both parties.

5. Any kind of tampering in aforesaid entire documents be not accepted.

6. Document concerning place of residence of both parties and witnesses be received and even their mobile Nos. were also received.

7. In case, mental condition is not good in view of not much age difference between the ages of bride and bridegroom, parties being hailing from the same Gotra etc, marriage be not performed.

8. Marriage ceremony be solemnized by way of Shaptpadi purely as per Vedic System.

9. Information regarding solemnization of every marriage in writing must be sent to the Madhya Bhartiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha within 7 days from the date of solemnization of marriage.

10. Coloured photographs of marriage and both parties along with date must taken.

11. Every marriage ceremony must be entered in the marriage register, including the names and addresses, date names of witnesses etc.

12. Separate files be prepared for every marriage ceremony in which photocopy of entire documents and photographs be attached. Sl. No. be mentioned on every file, information whereof be mentioned in the concerned column of marriage register. Marriage register and entire files be kept secured in the custody of Secretary of the Samaj.

13. Many persons have opened their shops in the name of Arya Samaj, where marriage ceremonies are being performed. Such persons do not have ideology similar to that of Arya Samaj and have no connection with Arya Samaj. If there is

information regarding any such person or organization then kindly intimate the undersigned about them.

6. It is clear from the above-mentioned conditions that the Arya Samaj Mandir has no authority to issue any marriage certificate. Even otherwise, a marriage certificate can be issued by the competent authority under the Special Marriage Act. Furthermore, as per Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937, marriage between Arya Samajists is not to be invalid. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are Arya Samajists.

7. Be that whatever it may.

8. Since Arya Samaj Mandir has no authority to issue any marriage certificate, therefore, the marriage certificate relied upon by the petitioners cannot be taken note of. Furthermore, it is clear from the complaint, which has been sent through the registered post, no instance of any threat has been mentioned. Furthermore, from the certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, the marriage was allegedly performed on 31/5/2022 and the complaint was sent on 14/6/2022 and no details or mobile number or the dates or the names of the persons, who had extended threat have been mentioned. Thus, it is clear that the self- imaginary complaint was sent by the petitioners in order to lay down a foundation for filing this writ petition.

9. Be that whatever it may.

10. The petitioners claim themselves to be major persons being above 23 years and 20 years of age respectively. It is well established principle of law that if two major persons are willing to live their life as per their wishes, then nobody has a right to interfere in their life. Accordingly, it is directed that in case if any complaint is made by the petitioners to the

Superintendent of Police, Morena pointing out the specific instances of offence as well as disclosing the names of the offenders, then the Superintendent of Police, Morena shall take necessary action in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 against the offender.

11. It is made clear that if any FIR has already been lodged, then this order shall not have any adverse effect on the same.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.06.23 18:50:56 +05'30'