Madras High Court
D.Malini vs The Registrar Of Marriages on 20 July, 2023
W.A.No.1490 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.1490 of 2023
D.Malini .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Registrar of Marriages
Office of the Registrar of Marriages
Ambattur, Chennai.
2. The District Registrar
Office of the District Registrar
Ambattur, Chennai.
3. Anandan
4. Jeganath G
5. Vinoth
6. Sambandhan .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 28.03.2023 in W.P.No.9428 of 2023.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1490 of 2023
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Sagayanathan
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
Assisted by
Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
for Respondents 1 & 2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appellant challenges the order passed by the learned
Single Judge thereby dismissing the petition.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no marriage
was solemnised between the appellant and the third respondent.
Forged document of marriage was created. The advocate, along with
the third respondent, took the appellant to the second respondent
office and obtained her signature stating that it is only for
registration of marriage on a future date. Thereafter, the appellant
returned to her parents house. The third respondent refused having
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1490 of 2023
interaction with the appellant and shifted his job and gradually,
interaction between the appellant and the third respondent was
stopped. The appellant's parents decided to arrange marriage for the
appellant. The third respondent contacted the mother of the
appellant and stated that the appellant married him and the same
was registered vide Marriage Registration No.354/2017 dated
15.06.2017. In fact, there was no marriage. The learned Single
Judge ought to have considered the said aspect.
3. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant
did not dispute her relationship with the third respondent and she
also did not dispute the fact that the third respondent obtained her
signature for registration of marriage at the relevant point of time.
4. It is the contention of the appellant that whether the
document is a forged document or otherwise could not have been
proved before the learned Single Judge in writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution as some evidence should be required.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1490 of 2023
The Apex Court in the case of Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav
[(2016 13 SCC 308] has observed that declaration as to the
validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. Be that as it
may, learned Single Judge has kept the remedy of the appellant
open.
5. The appellant is at liberty to avail remedy as may be
permissible under law. In that event, all contentions of the parties
are kept open.
6. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. There
will be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
20.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1490 of 2023
To
1. The Registrar of Marriages
Office of the Registrar of Marriages
Ambattur, Chennai.
2. The District Registrar
Office of the District Registrar
Ambattur, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1490 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(kpl)
W.A.No.1490 of 2023
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
