Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALJINDER KAUR versus REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES,PATIALA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baljinder Kaur v. Registrar of Marriages,Patiala - CWP-5963-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3282 (18 May 2006)

C.W.P. No.5963 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH

C.W.P. No. 5963 of 2006

Date of decision: May 18,2006

Baljinder Kaur V. Registrar of Marriages,Patiala CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

A written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed in court today. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The facts which emerge from the record show that the marriage of Baljinder Kaur, petitioner with Ram Tirath had taken place on March 9,1996. It further appears that the husband of the petitioner, Ram Tirath was born on June 1,1978 whereas the petitioner herself born on June 5,1978. In these circumstances, it is apparent that both the petitioners had already attained majority. A son was born to the petitioner on June 12,1997 and second son was born to her on August 13,1998 from the aforesaid wedlock. The husband of the petitioner left for Italy on August 28,2001 and there for certain official purposes he required a marriage certificate.

Consequently, the petitioner and her husband applied to the Registrar of Marriages for registration of their marriage. Vide order dated December 28,2004, the Registrar has rejected the claim of the applicants ( petitioner and her husband) and refused to register the marriage. The only reason given by the Registrar to refuse the registration of marriage is that the husband of the petitioner was not 21 years of age at the time of marriage on March 9,1996.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

The facts which are not in dispute show that as a matter of fact the marriage between the petitioner and her husband had actually taken C.W.P. No.5963 of 2006 2

place on March 9,1996. The parties are blessed with two sons also. In these circumstances, it would be wholly inappropriate and unjustified to deny the marriage certificate to the petitioner qua the aforesaid marriage. Clock cannot be put back and the factum of marriage has to be recognised by the court. The marriage, in any case, cannot be treated as void.

Consequently, we allow the present petition with a direction to the respondent-Registrar of Marriages,Patiala to register the marriage of the petitioner with Ram Tirath and issue requisite certificate within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

( Viney Mittal )

Judge

May 18,2006 ( H.S.Bhalla )

sks Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.