SMT. SEEMA versus ASHWANI KUMAR

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 25-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
I 
r 
SMT.SEEMA 
A 
v. 
ASHWANI KUMAR 
OCTOBER 25, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
B 
,A. 
}. . 
Constitution of India, 1950; Entries 5 and 30 of List 111, Seventh 
Schedule: 
Compulsory registration of marriage-Direction to States, Union c 
I 
Territories and Central Government to make necessary amendment 
in existing Rules-Central Government also directed to enact a 
comprehensive 'statute-Reporting of compliance by some States and 
Union Territories-Held: States and Union Territories who have not D 
complied with the directions given by this Court are directed to comply 
with the directions forthwith. 
It was directed by this Court in its judgment dated 14.2.2006 in 
the instant matter that all marriages shall be compulsorily registered 
and in terms of the order dated 23.7.2006 of this Court, the matter E 
is placed for compliance. 
Amicus curiae has made reference to the status reports and 
affidavits filed by various States and Union Territories, and has 
brought this Court's notice that some of the States have made F 
registration of marriages by Hindus compulsory, but it has not been 
done in respect of other religions. 
On consideration of compliance repmis received, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. From the compliance reports filed by the States and G 
Union Territories, it appears that States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, 
~ 
Chattisgarh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya, 
Mizoram, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura have complied 
with the direction. So far as the State of West Bengal is concerned, 
663 
H 
•
/l 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A it has been submitted by the counsel for the State that on 22.12.2006, 
changes have been made in the West Bengal Special Marriages 
Rules, 1969, registration of Muslim marriages & Divorces 
Registration Rules and Hindu Marriage Act for the purpose of 
making marriages compulsorily registrable and providing for 
B consequences for not doing it; that Christian and Parsi marriages 
are solemnized through compulsory registration according to the 
applicable statutes. Therefore, no separate rules have been framed 
A 
in this regard. So far as other States and Union Territories are 
• 4 
concerned, some of them have not filed any affidavit and in respect 
c of others, the directions have been complied with in respect of 
Hindus. The directions given in terms of the order dated 24.2.2006 
by this Court have not been fully complied with. It is, therefore, 
directed that the States and Union Territories who have not acted 
in line with the directions given by this Court on 14.2.2006 shall 
D forthwith do it. [Para 10] [669-C, D, E, F] 
1.2. The affidavits indicating compliance shall be filed before 
'¥ 
the next date of hearing. [Para 12] [669-G] 
I 
,, 
~ 
,. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 
E 291 of2005. 
Petition under section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer 
of the Matrimonial Suit No. 104 of2004 titled Ashwani Kumar Versus 
Seema pending in the Court of Ms. Rekha Rani, Additional District Judge, 
Delhi to the Court of the District Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. 
F 
Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.), K.A. Dewan, Balraj Dewan, Dheeraj K. 
..;}-
Sammi, Mukesh Verma, Manish Shanker, M.R. Shamshad, Prvesh 
Thakur, Yash Pal Dhingra, Tara Chandra Shanna, Neelam, Sharma, 
Rajeev Shanna, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, M. Ankul Raj, Anukul Raj, 
G Ajay Sharma, S.W.A. Qadri, G.V. Rao, Kamlendra Mishra, Kamini 
... 
Jaiswal, Suparna Srivastava, Rajesh Srivastava, Naveen Kumar Singh, 
Mukul Sood, Shashwat Gupta, Aruneswhar Gupta, Sanjay R. Hegde, 
-./. 
Amit Kr. Chawla, Avijit Roy, (for Corporate Law Group), Jayashree 
,,,., 
Anand, K.K. Mahalik, Kuldeep Singh, Jana Kalyan Das, A vijeet 
H Bhujabal, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, (for NCI of Delhi) D.S. 
/ 
} . 
SEEMAv. ASHWANIKUMAR[PASAYAT,J.] 
665 
Mahra, Sunita Shanna, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur (for Arputham, A 
Aruna & Co.) Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera, U. Hazarika, Satya Mitra, 
Sumita Hazarika, KH Nobin Singh, Tarun Jamwal, David Rao, P.V. 
Dinesh, B.K. Sandeep, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, S. Prabhu 
Ramasubramanian, B.S. Banthia, Naveen Sharma, Ranjan Mukherjee, 
S.C. Ghosh, J.S. Attri, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh, T.V. George, Anil B 
Shrivastav, Ritu Raj, Nandini Gore, K.R. Sasiprabhu, D. Bharathi Reddy, 
Anil Katiyar, S.S. Shinde, Asha G. Nair for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Pu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.