KULDEEP SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS, Rajasthan High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CW Case No. 17080 of 2017

Acts

Sub-section (2) of Section 6

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition challenges the legality of the procedure followed by the competent authority under the Special Marriages Act, 1954, specifically the practice of pasting a notice of the intending marriage at the respective residences of the couple through the SHO of the concerned Police Station. The court references a prior decision from the Delhi High Court which addressed a similar issue concerning the procedure for registration of marriages under the Act.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the procedure of pasting a notice of the intending marriage at the residence of the parties through the SHO is legally valid under the Special Marriages Act, 1954.
Whether the requirements of Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Special Marriages Act, 1954, authorize the issuance and affixing of such notices at the parties' residences.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kumar Mishra & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(C) No.748/2009 (08.04.2009)	Interpretation of Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Special Marriages Act, 1954, regarding the procedure for issuing and affixing notices of intended marriage.	The court adopted the reasoning that the Act does not authorize sending or affixing notices at the parties’ residences and held that such practice breaches individual privacy.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory provisions under the Special Marriages Act, 1954, focusing on Sections 4, 5, and 6. Section 4 outlines the legal requirements for solemnization of marriage and does not contemplate the issuance of a notice. Section 5 requires the parties to give notice to the Marriage Officer indicating residency for at least 30 days prior. Section 6 mandates that the Marriage Officer enter the notice in a register open for public inspection and publish the notice by affixing a copy at a conspicuous place in the officer’s office. The court concluded that the procedure of affixing or dispatching notices to the residence of the parties through the police is neither authorized by the Act nor legally warranted. Moreover, such practice infringes upon the privacy rights of the individuals involved. The court concurred with the prior Delhi High Court judgment and directed cessation of this practice in Rajasthan.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The court disposed of the petition by directing all Marriage Officers in the State of Rajasthan not to send notices to the residences of applicants seeking solemnization of marriage under the Special Marriages Act, 1954. This decision directly affects the procedural conduct of marriage registration authorities in Rajasthan by prohibiting the practice of affixing notices at the parties' residences. The opinion does not establish any new precedent beyond adopting the reasoning of the earlier Delhi High Court decision.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

KULDEEP SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 20/02/2018

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The issue raised in the petition is to the legality of the procedure followed by the competent authority under the Special Marriages Act, 1954 to paste a notice of the intending marriage between the couple at the respective residence of the couple through SHO of the concerned Police Station.

3. Same procedure was being followed in Delhi and as per a decision dated 08.04.2009 in W.P.(C) No.748/2009: Pranav (2 of 3) [CW-17080/2017] Kumar Mishra & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., a learned Single Judge held that procedure for registration of the marriage under the Special Marriages Act, 1954 does not warrant to send a notice at the residence of the parties, much less affix the same at the residence through the SHO. The learned Single Judge noted that as per Section 4 of the Act the requirements to be fulfilled in law for solemnization of special marriages have been provided and does not contemplate issuance of a notice. The notice of the intended marriage is conceived by Section 5. It contemplates the parties to the marriage to give a notice in the forms specified in the Act to the Marriage Office indicating therein that they have been residing at the given address for not less than 30 days immediately preceding the date when such notice is given.

4. As per Section 6, the notice received by the Marriage Office has to be entered in a register which shall be open to any person desirous of inspecting the same. Sub-section (2) of Section

6 requires the Marriage Officer to cause every such notice to be published by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place in his office.

5. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge is that the procedure of affixing the notice at the residence of the parties is not warranted or authorised by law. It has been held that this would amount to a breach of privacy of the individuals.

6. We concur with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and thus dispose of the present petition directing all Marriage Officers in the State of Rajasthan not to despatch notices to the residence of the applicants who (3 of 3) [CW-17080/2017] seeks solemnization of their marriage under the Special Marriages Act, 1954.

7. No costs. (G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ KKC/s-38

KULDEEP SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

KULDEEP SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

Comments