Skip to content


Satya Sundar Das and anr. Vs. Registrar of Hindu Marriages - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Civil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberO.J.C. No. 16 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1963Ori139; 29(1963)CLT417
ActsHindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 20 and 20(1); Orissa Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1960 - Rules 6 and 8
AppellantSatya Sundar Das and anr.
RespondentRegistrar of Hindu Marriages
Appellant AdvocateR. Mohanty, ;R.N. Misra and ;G. Das, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateAdv. General
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is..........1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution against the order of the registrar of hindu marriages dated 31-7-1961 dismissing an application filed by the two petitioners for registration of their marriage under section 8 of the hindu marriage act (no. xxv of 1955) on the ground that the declaration of absence of collusion, as required by sub-section (1) of section 20 of that act has not been given. section 8 of the said act says that a hindu marriage may be registered in accordance with the rules made by the state government. in exercise of this power the government of orissa made rules known as the orissa hindu marriage registration rules 1960. rule 6 of these rules says that an application for registration shall contain all the particulars required in form b. but there.....
Judgment:

Narasimham, C. J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Registrar of Hindu Marriages dated 31-7-1961 dismissing an application filed by the two petitioners for registration of their marriage under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) on the ground that the declaration of absence of collusion, as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of that Act has not been given. Section 8 of the said Act says that a Hindu marriage may be registered in accordance with the Rules made by the State Government. In exercise of this power the Government of Orissa made rules known as the Orissa Hindu Marriage Registration Rules 1960. Rule 6 of these Rules says that an application for registration shall contain all the particulars required in Form B. But there is no column in Form B for the applicants to declare that there was no collusion between them. Hence such a declaration was not given. The learned Registrar however held that, apart from the particulars required by Form B the applicants should also sign a declaration as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act.

2. If the various provisions of the Act are carefully scrutinised it would appear that Sections 19 to 28--which are all placed under the heading 'Jurisdiction and Procedure' -- refer to petitions made before the District Court for various reliefs provided in the said Act such as restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, divorce, declaration of nullity of marriage etc. Section 19 expressly says that a petition under that Act shall be presented to the District Court thereby making it clear that that section has no application to proceedings before the Registrar of Hindu Marriages,

Doubtless Sub-section (1) of Section 20 does not expressly say that the petition presented under the Act (referred to in that section) shall be the petition presented before the District Court, but considering the fact that it comes immediately after Section 19 and there is a reference to 'Claim to relief' in Sub-section (1) of that Section and also to the fact that in Sub-section (2) of that Section there is a reference to 'law for verification of plaints' 'hearing' and 'evidence' the reasonable view seems to be that section 20 also applies to petitions presented before the District Court, and it cannot, by its own force, apply to petitions for registration of marriages made under the aforesaid rules, before the Registrar of Hindu Marriages, Rule 6 seems to be exhaustive so far as the particulars to be furnished in the application for registration, before the Registrar, are concerned.

It is true that Rule 8 contemplates some sort of summary enquiry by the Registrar with a view to satisfy himself that there was due solemnisation of the marriage between the parties applying for registration. But if the Government thought that for the purpose of facilitating such an enquiry the parties should also declare that there was no collusion between them they could easily have provided an appropriate column for that purpose in Form B. In the absence of any such special provision in Form B or in the Rules, it will not be proper, as a matter of statutory construction, to apply the provisions of Sub-section (1) or Section 20 of the Act to applications for registration of marriages made before the Registrar.

3. This does not mean that we hold that the marriage between the applicants is duly established. This matter is left open to be considered by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages, after holding such enquiry as he may consider necessary, under Rule 8. But all that we wish to say is that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to dismiss the application on the ground that the requirements of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act have not been complied with.

4. For these reasons We allow this application, set aside the order of the Registrar of Hindu Marriages, dated 31st July 1961 and restore the application to his the for disposal according to law. Both parties will bear their own costs.

Barman, J.

5. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //