Marriage under special marriage act can be registered through video conferencing: Supreme Court
Table of contents
Introduction
Database of Supreme Court Case
- Coram
- Bench
- Title of the case
- Citation
- Counsel for petitioners
- Counsel for the respondents
- Next hearing date
Analysing High Court Judgement
Database of High Court Case
- Coram
- Bench
- Title of the case
- Citation
- Counsel for petitioners
- Counsel for the respondents
- Next hearing date
Issues raised
Facts of the case
Respondents contended
Not complete exemption on appearance
Judgement
Conclusion
Introduction
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed the appeal filed by State of Haryana against the judgement of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Ami Ranjan and another v. State of Haryana and another. In the case the High court has granted marriage certificate under special marriage act via video conferencing in this case the wife was unable to travel to India from the USA due to the travel restriction imposed by the government keeping in mind the spread of COVID-19. The Division Bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian orally observed that “Law has to march along with technology”. The bench also stated that “Special Marriage Act, 1954 was enacted in 1954 whereas the technology of Computer and Internet was introduced in later years. Therefore, the law has to march along with technology. Where there is difficulty, the letter of law cannot be so rigid that it makes it impossible for the parties to follow. Moreover, the registration department is there to facilitate the parties and not to create obstruction or hurdles for the parties”
Database of Supreme Court appeal case
Supreme Court Case | |
Coram | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN |
Bench | Division |
Title of the case | STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. v. AMI RANJAN & ANR. |
Citation | Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11057/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-03-2021 in LPA No. 125/2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) |
Counsel for the petitioners | Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mudgal, AAG Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Nandita Jha, Adv. Mr. Y.P. Singh, Adv. |
Counsel for the respondents | Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anup Jain, AOR Mr. Abhishek Baid, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Bafna, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Adv. |
Status | The Supreme Court upholds the judgement of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Ami Ranjan and another v. State of Haryana and another. |
Analysing High Court Judgement
Database of High Court case
High Court CaseIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH | |
Coram | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI and HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI |
Bench | Division |
Title of the case | Ami Ranjan and another v. State of Haryana and another |
Citation | LPA No.125 of 2021 (O&M) (in CWP No.20480 of 2020) |
Counsel for the petitioners | Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nitin Kant Setia |
Counsel for the respondents | Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G. |
Status | Date of decision: 09.03.2021 |
Issues raised
- Whether the certificate of marriage can be issued on doing verification of facts as contemplated under Sections 15 and 16 of the Special Marriage Act via video conferencing?
Facts of the case
This petition has been filed by the appellants for quashing of the order issued by the Deputy Collector-cum-Marriage Officer, Gurugram. The said officer has rejected the registration of marriage because there is no provision for registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without parties appearing in person before the marriage officer. Misha Verma is a USA citizen of Indian origin and has been living in the USA. She is employed at Virginia University School of Medicine as Resident Doctor and Ami Ranjan has been working as IT Consultant at Publicis Sapient in London (United Kingdom) since 2017. The appellants solemnized marriage on 07.12.2019 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, at Gurugram (Haryana). After marriage, both of them returned back to their respective workplaces. An application for registration of their marriage was filed before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Marriage Officer, Gurugram on 29.01.2020, due to the spread of COVID-19 Pandemic, the appellants could not return to India. Ami Ranjan can go to the USA to meet his wife, but for that purpose he has to attach a marriage certificate along with an application for obtaining a VISA. In this backdrop, on account of lack of marriage certificate, parties are facing unprecedented hardship. Petitioners have cited many cases in which courts have considered the option of video conferencing for witnesses or other evidence.
Respondents contended
The State in its plea had also averred that the High Court had further failed to consider and appreciate the material facts that the certificate book was kept in the office of the Marriage Officer and it was the Marriage Officer who had to authenticate all these process and then to issue the certificate to the parties, therefore to bring such registration at par with those of the marriages performed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 it was necessary that the parties come before the Marriage Officer. The High Court has failed to consider and appreciate that it was clear that for the marriages performed as per the procedure prescribed under the Act everything was prescribed to be done in the presence of the Marriage Officer so as to make it an authentic Act. The State had thereafter sought an ad interim ex parte stay.
Not complete exemption on appearance
The Court has not completely exempted the appearance of Misha Verma (Who is working in the USA) before the Registrar of Marriage. Her Husband is only seeking that his wife should be allowed to appear through video conferencing, so that the marriage can be registered. Misha Verma, wife of appellant No.1, was employed in Virginia University School of Medicine as Resident Doctor. Now, she is working in J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital at 1 Medical Center Drive, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, United States. In this case, the presence of Misha Verma can be secured through video conferencing and the presence of husband-Ami Ranjan and three witnesses can be marked by their appearance in the office of Registrar of Marriages. Then, the certificate of marriage can be issued on verification of facts as contemplated under Sections 15 and 16 of the Special Marriage Act. Once the marriage certificate is issued, it can be made part of the public record under Section 47 of the Act by entering it into the Marriage Certificate Book. There shall be no violation of Section 47 of the Act. The entire process can be done after seeking the presence of Misha Verma, wife of Ami Ranjan through video conferencing. For all intents and purposes, this would be a valid marriage certificate.
Judgment
Hon’ble court has set aside the order issued by the Deputy Collector-cum-Marriage Officer and permitted Ami Ranjan to file the application through video conference, court held that he can now proceed to register the marriage after 30 days as per Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
It further directed that Presence of Misha Verma can be secured through video conferencing and she can appear before J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital, at 1 Medical Center Drive, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, United States at an appropriate date and time fixed in consultation with both Deputy Commissioner-cum-Marriage Officer and J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital or the Indian Consulate/High Commission at 2107 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20008, United States.
Hon’ble high court also directed that three witnesses can appear in-person before the Registrar of Marriages/Marriage Officer. If all the above mentioned requirements are satisfied, Deputy Collector-cum-Marriage Officer, Gurugram will issue an order; make the necessary entries and issue the marriage certificate in the prescribed form to Ami Ranjan and his wife Misha Verma.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that with the advent of technology and other developments, the interpretation of law has been given a wider scope by the courts. The requirement of physical appearance before marriage registrar have been complied with via video conferencing. The bench also orally said that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was enacted in 1954 whereas the technology of Computer and Internet was introduced in later years. Therefore, the law has to march along with technology. Where there is difficulty, the letter of law cannot be so rigid that it makes it impossible for the parties to follow. Moreover, the registration department is there to facilitate the parties and not to create obstruction or hurdles for the parties