Madras High Court
Preeti Agarwal vs / on 11 March, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.25681 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:11.03.2025
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.25681 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.29368, 29370 and 25136 of 2023
Preeti Agarwal,
D/o R.Mahesh,
No.1/39M, Chakrapani Colony,
St.Thomas Mount,
Alandur, Chennai 600 016. .. Petitioner
/versus/
1.The District Registrar,
Chennai North Joint-1,
Kuralagam Building, 1st Floor,
Parrys, Chennai 600 108.
2.M/s Annai Party Hall,
No.21, Muthumari Chetty Street,
Mnnady, Chennai 600 001.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
W.P.No.25681 of 2023
3.R.Karthick @ R.Jaikarthick,
S/o Radhakrishnan,
No.21/1, Bajanai Koil 1st street,
Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. .. Respondents
Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
record pertaining to Marriage Registration Certificate in Marriage Sl.No.425
of 2018, dated 07.08.2018, on the file of the 2nd respondent and
consequently, quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.V.L.Akshai Sajin Kumar
For Respondents :Mr.R.Sasikumar, GA for R1
Mr. Ali Hassan Khan for R3
Not ready in notice for R2
------
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records pertaining to the Marriage Registration Certificate in
Marriage Sl.No.425 of 2018, dated 07.08.2018, on file of the 2nd
respondent, and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
2. The petitioner claims that the 3rd respondent behaved in a friendly
manner towards her. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive a legal
notice on 08.07.2022 from the third respondent. The notice revealed that she
was married to the third respondent on 06.08.2018 at Annai Party Hall,
No.1, Muthumari Chetty Street, Mannady, Chennai-600 001, and that the
marriage was subsequently registered before the first respondent on
07.08.2018, referenced as marriage Sl.No.425 of 2018. The petitioner was
taken to the office of the first respondent under the pretense that a friend of
the 3rd respondent had eloped with someone else, and she signed whatever
documents were presented to her, believing she was merely acting as a
witness. She never realized that her signature would be used to claim that a
marriage took place between her and the third respondent. It was only later,
upon learning of the third respondent's claim, that arrangements were made
to file a petition before the jurisdictional Family Court in Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
Accordingly, O.P.No.3360 of 2022 was filed before the Principal Family
Judge, Chennai, for divorce by mutual consent, and proof affidavits were
also submitted. When the matter was listed for final hearing on 27.01.2023,
a demand for a large sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was made. The petitioner and
her family were effectively held to ransom, with the threat that unless the
amount was paid, he would not attend the hearing and resolve the issue.
There are no marriage photographs or videographic evidence of the
marriage. Under these circumstances, the Marriage Registration Certificate
is being challenged before this Court.
3. The first respondent resisted the writ petition by filing a counter.
The Registering Authority submitted that the forms were filed and the
photographs were affixed. The petitioner and the third respondent were
present before the Registering Authority and also affixed their left thumb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
impressions. The witness also duly identified the persons who signed, and
the due process of registration took place. Accordingly, a Marriage
Certificate was issued.
4. The third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that both
the third respondent and the petitioner were in a relationship, and as a result,
they got married on 06.08.2018, which was registered on 07.08.2018.
According to the third respondent, the claims made in the affidavit are
entirely false. Furthermore, the third respondent asserts that the matter
concerning the validity of the marriage must be factually established before
the jurisdictional Family Court, before which the petition in O.P.No.1541 of
2023, regarding the request for restitution of conjugal rights, is pending.
5. Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel representing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
petitioner, strongly relies on the Division Bench of this Court in S.
Balakrishnan Pandiyan v. R. Ram Prasath reported in [2014-5-L.W 207]. He
submits that this Court has already considered in detail about all types of
registrations made under the Act. Registration certificates are being issued
without performing the marriage. It has been specifically held in that case
that unless the marriage ceremonies are properly performed, marriages
conducted in the offices of Advocates are invalid, and no registration
certificate can be granted in respect thereof.
6. It is his contention that in this incident, the registration certificate is
liable to be quashed on two grounds. Firstly, Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu
Registration of Marriages Act, 2009, mandates that the memorandum filed
under Section 5 for the registration of the marriage shall be signed by the
parties to the marriage, the priest and two witnesses. The learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
draws the Court's attention to the form of marriage in the memorandum filed
in this case, noting that in Column 1-B, the name of the mother of the third
respondent is mentioned as Rani. Additionally, the same name, Rani, is
mentioned in the column for the priest’s name. Therefore, the marriage
should not have been registered by the Registrar. He would refer to the
photograph provided regarding the address at No. 21, Muthumari Chetty
Street, Mannady, Chennai 600 00. It shows only an Advocate's office and
appears to be shop and office premises in an old building. There is no
marriage hall at that address. Even in the original affidavit, it is stated that
despite their best efforts, the family members could not locate a marriage
hall. The Senior Counsel further argues that this Court has consistently
criticised the registration of such marriages, and thus, the marriage should
not have been registered in this instance. The writ petition liable to be
allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf
of the first respondent submits that, after due compliance with the procedure,
the marriage has been registered. The Registrar cannot visit every location to
ascertain whether there is a marriage hall and the registration is done
according to the forms filed by the parties. It is contended that the petitioner
also appeared, duly signed, and affixed their left thumb impression.
8. Per contra, Mr. Ali Hassan Khan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the 3rd respondent, submits that the petitioner falsely contends that
she was taken aback upon receiving the legal notice and that she went to the
registrar's office merely as a witness. Her own proof-affidavit in the mutual
consent petition suggests otherwise; the parties signed the petition under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, acknowledging that the
marriage was performed in Annai Party Hall. When the third respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
changed his mindset and did not appear before the Court for mutual consent
during the second hearing, it did not invalidate the marriage in any way. The
party hall existed in 2019, and the current situation cannot be taken into
account. According to the learned counsel, the mere non-signing of the priest
or the incorrect mention of the mother's name in respect to the priest's name
will not invalidate the entire proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel will rely on certain judgments in
W.P.(MD)No.14650 of 2018, dated 25.03.2019, and W.P.No.9428 of 2023,
dated 28.03.2023, to plead that an alternative remedy exists. The learned
counsel will also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others v. M/s
Commercial Steel Limited in Civil Appeal No.5121 of 2021, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
17.04.2023.
10. I have considered the rival submissions from both sides and
reviewed the materials of the case.
11. In this writ petition, this Court is concerned only with the
registration of marriage under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act,
2009.
12. Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act,
2009 is quoted below:
“2(e)”Priest” means any person who performs a
marriage or any person present in the marriage referred to in
Secion 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (central Act XXV
of 1955).”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
13. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009
states the following and is extracted below:
“Section 3: Marriages to be compulsorily
registered:- Every marriage performed on and from the
date of commencement of this Act shall be registered
under this Act notwithstanding the fact that the said
marriage has been entered in the marriage registers
governed by any other personal laws of the parties to
the marriage or custom or usage or tradition.”
14. Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009
is extracted here:
“Section 6: Signature on memorandum and
fees tobe paid:- Every memorandum referred to in
Section 5 shall be signed by the parties to the marriage
and by the priest and two witnesses and shall be
accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
15. Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009
is extracted hereunder:
“Section 23: Non-registration not to
invalidate marriage: No marriage performed in this
State to which this Act applies shall be deemd to be
invalid solely by reason of the fact that it was not
registered under this Act.”
16. The scope of the Act is no longer res integra, and has been
decided by this Court in B. Sahar Bau v. The Inspector General of
Registration/The Registrar General of Marriage Registration and others in
W.P. (MD) No. 7288 of 2015 dated 17.10.2022. It has been categorically held
that the exercise conducted under the Act is statutory. Section 23 of the Act
states that no marriage performed in the State of Tamil Nadu, to which the
Act applies, shall be deemed invalid solely because it was not registered
under this Act. Consequently, the validity of the marriage is not solely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
dependent on the registration and this Court is only considering the propriety
of issuing the registration certificate. Therefore, the argument on behalf of
the petitioner that there is alternative remedy cannot be countenanced as this
court is not entering into the disputed questions about the marriage being
performed or not.
17. Further, regarding the validity of the marriage, paragraph 3 of the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states the following:
“3. I respectfully submit that I was in receipt of a
legal notice dated 08.07.2022 from the 3rd respondent
herein. I further submit that the contents therein stated that I
had got married to the 3rd respondent on 06.08.2018 at
Annai Party Hall, No.21, Muthumari Chetty Street,
Mannady, Chennai 600 001 and that our marriage was
subsequently registered before the 1st respondent on
07.08.2018 vide marriage Sl.No.425 of 2018. The legal
notice further called upon me to live together with the 3rd
respondent in the matrimonial home within a week, failing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
which I was informed that appropriate proceedings for
restitution of conjugal rights shall be initiated.”
18. However, in the original petition filed for mutual consent under
Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, paragraph 3 states as
follows:
“The petitioners submit that the marriage between
the petitioners 1 and 2 was solemnized according to the
Hindu Rites and Customs at Annai Party Hall, No.21,
Muthumari Chetty Street, Mannady, Chennai 600 00` on
06.08.2018 and subsequently, registered before the District
Registrar North on 07.08.2018 in marriage Sl.No.425 of
2018. There was no marriage invitation and no photographs
taken in the marriage.”
19. The petitioner had also filed a proof of affidavit in which it is
stated as follows.
“PROOF AFFIDAVIT OF PREETI AGARWAL - 1st
PETITIONER
I, Preeti Agarwal Daughter of R.Mahesh, Hindu, aged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
about 27 years, residing at No.l/39M, Chakrapani Colony,
St.Thomas Chennai-600 016, do hereby solemnly affirm and
sincerely state as follows:-
1. I am the first petitioner in the above F.C.O.P. and I am
well acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. I submit that I and the 2nd petitioner herein are jointly
filing the above FCOP before this HonTile Court seeking for decree
of divorce by dissolving marriage between the petitioners-1&2
herein solemnized at Annai Party Hall, No.21, Muthumari Chetty
Street, Mannady, Chennai-600 001, on 06.08.2018 according to the
Hindu rites and customs and subsequently registered before the
District Registrar North on 07.08.2018 in Marriage SI. No.
425/2018 mutual consent.
3.1 crave leave of this Honhle Court to treat the above
FCOP as part and parcel hereof.
4.I submit that the marriage between me and 2nd petitioner
was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and customs at Annai
Party Hall, No.21, Muthumari Chetty Street, Mannady, Chennai
600 001 on 06.08.2018 and subsequently Registered before the
District Registrar North on 07.08.2018 in Marriage
Sl.No.425/2018. There was no marriage invitation and no
photographs taken in the marriage.
5.I submit that after our marriage 1st and 2nd petitioner
never lived as husband and wife and immediately separated on
07.08.2018. Out of our wedlock, no issues were born to us. The
marriage between me and the 2nd petitioner was not consummated.
In this regard, the 2nd petitioner issued a legal notice dated
08.07.2022 to me for that I replied suitably on 18.07.2022 to the
2nd petitioner. I and the 2nd petitioner have been unable to
reconcile and finally I and the 2nd petitioner found extremely
difficult to cope up with each other, whereby there mental tension
always on both sides and I and the 2nd petitioner had lost all our
peace in life. After taking to all considerable facts, 1 and the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
petitioner decided to file the present petition jointly for divorce on
mutual consent on the following conditions:
A. I fully gave my consent for the dissolution of our
marriage mutually as prayed for in the present petition.
B. I hereby agree to give up my claim in respect of
maintenance in future also.
C. I hereby duly agree to lead my life separately
without involving or interfering with the 2nd petitioner from the
date of divorce and I have no objection for his remarriage.
D.l hereby declare that there are no mutual claims
against the 1st petitioner regarding maintenance, moveable and
immovable in past, present and future.
E. I hereby assure that there is no fraud, force undue
influence or collusion between me and 2nd petitioner and there is
no delay in filing the petition. My consent is not obtained by the
1st petitioner by fraud or undue influence.
F. I hereby declare that I and 1st petitioner do not
jointly own or possess any property moveable or immoveable and
that I do not possess any property of the 2nd Petitioner.
G.I hereby assure that there is no fraud, force undue
influence or collusion between them and there is no delay in filing
the petition. My consent has not been obtained by fraud or undue
influence.
H.I further assure that I have not received any
articles, so there is no question arise with regard to the exchange of
articles between me and the 2nd petitioner, I have no further claim
as against the 2nd petitioner.
I.I assure that there is no collusion between me and
the 2nd petitioner in filing this Petition and further assure that no
other similar petition is filed or pending before this Hon’ble Court
or any other Courts for this Subject matter against the 2nd
petitioner.
6. I state that in the above said circumstances, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
therefore desirable and necessary that the marriage should be
dissolved on mutual in trust of myself and 2nd Petitioner.
7. It is submitted that in the above O.P, I have filed
the following four relevant Documents for the purpose of proving
the averments contained in the F.C.O.P and the said Documents
may be marked as Exhibits P1 to P5 on my side in this case which
are detailed hereunder.
Sl. Description of
Date Exhibits
No. documents
Marriage
1 07.08.2018 Registration P1
Certificate
Legal notice issued
by the 2nd petitioner
2 08.07.2022 P2
through his advocate
to the 1st petitioner
Reply notice issued
by the 1st petitioner
3 18.07.2022 through her P3
Advocate to the 2nd
petitioner's Advoate
Aadhaar Card of the
4 - P4
1st petitioner
Aadhaar Card of the
5 - P5
2nd petitioner
8. It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to (i)Pass a decree of divorce by
dissolving the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2
herein solemnized at Annai Party Hall, No.2l, Muthumari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
Chetty Street, Mannady, Chennai 600 001 on 06.08.2018
according to the Hindu rites and customs and subsequently
registered before the District Registrar North on 07.08.2018
in Marriage Sl.No.425/2018 on mutual consent and pass
such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case thus render
justice.”
20. Thus, in light of the contradictory positions taken by the petitioner
herself and the facts disputed by the third respondent, this Court cannot
consider the issue under Article 226. The only question to be decided is
whether the registration certificate is in accordance with the law. Two
grounds are raised in this regard. The learned counsel also submits that there
is no party hall named Annai Party Hall. In this context, the stance taken in
the affidavit supporting the writ petition is not categorical. Firstly, it is
mentioned that a fake certificate was obtained from Annai Party Hall.
Secondly, it is stated that the relatives could not ascertain the existence of
Annai Party Hall. Even the notice sought to be served in the writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
was returned with an endorsement stating that there is no such party hall.
The Learned Senior Counsel submits that the second respondent was added
solely to prove its non-existence. However, since there is currently no such
party hall, the court proceeded to further hear the writ petition. Since the
third respondent disputes this fact and claims that the party hall existed at
the relevant time, this Court cannot decide the factual issue in the writ
petition, especially with the Original Petition pending between the parties
before the Jurisdictional Family Court.
21. The second argument relating to the validity of the marriage
certificate on the ground that there is no sign of the priest. The forms filed
by the parties for registration is not disputed. In column 1B, concerning the
details of the parents, it is mentioned as’ Rani resides at number 21/A,
Bajanai Koil 7th Street, Vadapalani, Chennai 600026’. Again in column
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
No.5, regarding the name and address of the priest who solemnized the
marriage or was present at the marriage, it is mentioned as ‘R.Rani,
No.21/A, Bajanai Koil, 7th Street, Vadapalani, Chennai 600026’. Notably,
only the mother's name is recorded in that column as well. The third
respondent does not claim that the marriage is a ‘Suyamariyathai Marriage’,
nor is it his specific assertion that his mother is the priest.
22. Section 6 of the Act requires the priest to sign the memorandum.
The registration and issuance of the registration certificate thus is without
application of mind. Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages
Rules, 2009, requires the registration authority to verify these aspects. The
registration authority need not conduct any roving inquiry, nor is he
expected to conduct a spot inspection; instead, the only expectation is that
the registration authority verify the forms filed before him and decide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
accordingly. Thus, on the limited ground, the petitioner is entitled to
succeed, while this Court is not pronouncing upon the marriage as such.
23. In view of this, this Writ Petition is ordered on the following
terms.
(i) The impugned marriage certificate No. 425 of 2018, dated
07.08.2018, is hereby quashed.
(ii) Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
No costs.
11.03.2025
Neutral citation:yes
ari
To:
The District Registrar,Chennai North Joint-1,
Kuralagam Building, 1st Floor,Parrys, Chennai 600 108.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ari
and
W.M.P.Nos.29368, 29370 and 25136 of 2023
11.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 02:34:20 pm )
