Seema v. Ashwani Kumar

Supreme Court of India, 14 February 2006, 2 judges

Marriages of all Indian citizens, of every religion, must be made compulsorily registrable in the State where solemnised, and the States were directed to notify registration rules within three months.

Facts

While hearing a transfer petition between a wife and husband, the Court noted with concern that in many cases persons deny the existence of a marriage because most States keep no official record of marriages. It issued notice to the States and Union Territories and appointed the Solicitor General and a senior advocate as amicus curiae to assist in laying down guidelines on registration of marriages. All States and Union Territories said that registration was highly desirable. The Court surveyed the existing laws: only four State statutes made registration compulsory, several personal law statutes provided for registration, and under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act registration was largely left to the parties. The National Commission for Women supported compulsory registration.

Questions before the Court

Should registration of marriages be made compulsory for all citizens, and what directions should be issued to the States and the Central Government?

What the Court held

Registration of marriages falls within 'vital statistics' in Entry 30 of the Concurrent List.
Registration is not by itself proof of a valid marriage, but it raises a rebuttable presumption that the marriage took place and has great evidentiary value on custody of children, rights of children and the age of the parties. Non-registration mostly affects women.
Marriages of all citizens of India, of every religion, should be made compulsorily registrable in the State where solemnised; a person whose marriage is not registered loses the presumption that registration gives.
The States were directed to notify the registration procedure within three months after inviting public objections, with rules requiring age and marital status to be stated and providing consequences for non-registration and false declarations. Any comprehensive central statute was to be placed before the Court.

Why it matters

Arising out of a transfer petition, the order makes registration of marriages compulsory for all citizens through directions to the States and the Centre. It explains the evidentiary value of registration, a rebuttable presumption that the marriage took place, while making clear that registration is not itself proof of a valid marriage, and links the reform to the protection of women and prevention of child marriage.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“If the marriage is registered it also provides evidence of the marriage having taken place and would provide a rebuttable presumption of the marriage having taken place. Though, the registration itself cannot be a proof of valid marriage per se, and would not be the determinative factor regarding validity of a marriage, yet it has a great evidentiary value in the matters of custody of children, right of children born from the wedlock of the two persons whose marriage is registered and the age of parties to the marriage.”

Arijit Pasayat, J.Page 4 of the judgment

“As a natural consequence, the effect of non registration would be that the presumption which is available from registration of marriages would be denied to a person whose marriage is not registered. Accordingly, we are of the view that marriages of all persons who are citizens of India belonging to various religions should be made compulsorily registrable in their respective States, where the marriage is solemnized.”

Arijit Pasayat, J.Page 4 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 8, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Entry 30, List III, Seventh Schedule, Constitution

Case and bench

Parties: Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar
Case: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 291 of 2005
Decided: 14 February 2006
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment delivered by Arijit Pasayat, J.

Questions on this case

2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.