LexSEEMA versus ASHWANI KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 10 S.C.R. 566 SEEMA v. ASHWANI KUMAR (Transfer Petition (C).No. 291 .of 2005 ) JULY 9, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P .. SAT~ASl.VAM, .,!J.] Family Law: Registration of marriage -:-. Directions by Supreme Court C to States and Union Territories to frame necessary s(ati.Jtes regarding compulsory registration of marriages - ~on-'com pliance of-: Held: States and Union Territories which did not give specific details of comp!lance diretted to file affidavits within four months. D E Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2006) 2 SCC 578 and .Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2008) 1 SCC 180 - referred to. CIVIL OR!GINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No.291 of2005 · Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.) Dinesh Dwivedi, K.A. Dewan Balraj Dewan, Mukesh Verma, Manish Shanker Srivastava, Yash Pal Dhingra, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ajay Sharma, NeelamSharma, Gopal Singh, Ritu Raj Biswas, S~_antanu Krishna, Anuvrat Sharma, Kamini Jaiswal, Suparna S~ivastava, N~eraj Gupta, F Rajesh Srivastava, Aruneswhar Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh, Shashwat Gupta, Sanjay R. Hegde, Avijit Roy, Rlku Sarma (for Mis. Corporate Law Group) Kuldeep Singh, Jana Kalyan Das, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathi~h. D.S. Mahra, Sunita Sharma, A. Subhashini, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur (for Mis. G Arputham, Aruna & Co.) Hemantika 'Wahi,· Pinky, Jesal, U. H Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Sumita Hazarika, K.H. Nobin Singh, Tarun Jamwal, David Rao, S. Biswajit Meitei, Vijay Prakash, P.V. Dinesh, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu 566 ,.._ • y SEEMA v. ASHWANI KUMAR 567 _,, [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] Ramasubramanian, Naveen Sharma, Vikas Upadhyay, B.S. A Banthia, Ranjan Mukherjee, Naresh K. Sharma, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh, T.V. George, Anil Shrivastav, Ritu Raj, Manish Kumar Saran, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay Kharde, Asha G. Nair, J.K. Bhatia, B.N. Jha, D.M. Nargolkar, V.N. Raghupathy, Nandini Gore, K.R. Sasiprabhu, ~ D. Bharathi Reddy and Anil Katiyar for the appearing parties. The Judgment df the Court was delivered by . DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In this case directions were given to the States and the Union Territories in the matter of C' framing necessary· statutes regarding compulsory registration of marriages. By order dated 14.2.2006 (reported in Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2006(2) SCC 578) following directions were given: J -~ (i) The procedure for registration should be notified by D respective States within three months from today. This can be done by amending the existing rules, if any, or by framing new rules. However, objections from members of the public shall be invited before bringing the said rules into force. In this connection, E due publicity shall be given by the States and the matter shall be kept oven for objections for a period of one month from the date of advertisement inviting objections. On the expiry of the said period, the States > shall issue appropriate notification bringing the rules "( F into force. (ii) The officer appointed under the said rules of the States shall be duly authorized to register the marriages. The age, marital status (unmarried, divorcee)" shall be clearly stated.The consequence G of non-registration of marriages or for filing false declaration shall also be provided for in the said rules. Needless to add that the object of the said rules shall be to carry out the directions of this Court. H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A (iii) As and when the Central Government enacts a B comprehensive statute, the same shall be placed before this Court for scrutiny. (iv) Learned counsel for various States and Union Territories shall ensure that the directions given herein are carried out immediately." Subsequently by order dated 25.10.2007 further directions were given. (see: Seema V. Ashwani Kumar 2008(1) sec 180). Particular reference was made to the earlier observations to c the effect that marriages of all persons who are citizens of India belonging to various religions should be made compulsorily registered in their respective States where the marriages have been organized. Different States and the Union Territories have placed on record details of the compliance made when the 0 matter was taken upon on 28.4.2008. It was stated that four States namely: Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerela and Haryana have already final rules. So far as the State of Punjab is cnn- cerned it was submitted that the Bill has been prepared
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.