P&H High Court [DB] Allows Registration Of Marriage Through VC Mode, Sets Aside Single Bench 'Judgment'

The Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Archana Puri was hearing a Letter Patent Appeal directed against Single Bench Judgment refusing to permit the couple to undergo e-registration of their marriage.

The Single Judge Bench had held that there is no provision for registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without parties appearing in person before the marriage officer.

Facts in brief

The case of the petitioners before the Court was that the appellants solemnized marriage in December 2019, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Gurugram (Haryana).

After marriage, both of them returned back to their respective workplaces in the United Kingdom (Husband) and United States (Wife).

An application for registration of their marriage was filed before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Marriage Officer in January 2020 and thereafter, they were called to appear before the authority in April 2020.

In the meantime, due to the spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the appellants could not return to India. Due to this reason, the Husband made an application In August 2020 to the Marriage Officer with a request that the second motion hearing may be conducted through video conference. This request was rejected vide letter/order in September 2020.

It was contended before the Court that the wife, who is a medical professional, was on COVID-19 emergency duty in the United States and that the husband needed a marriage certificate for obtaining visa to meet her.

Lastly, it was argued that parties could be asked to be present before the Embassy/Consulate of India in the United States and United Kingdom to authenticate their identity.

Thereafter, the identity of the appellants could be verified through the Government authorities in the respective countries.

It was contended that by doing so, there would be sufficient compliance of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act and their marriages can be registered by the Marriage Officer by conducting the virtual hearing.

Single Bench Judgment

Dismissing the petition, the Single Bench had ruled that the procedure prescribed for registration of the marriage requires that parties should be present in person along with two witnesses.

It was also held that the process of video conference, at best, could be resorted to during the intermediatory process of the inquiry to be conducted by the Marriage Officer and thereafter, for the registration of marriage, parties have to be present in person as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

The Single Judge had observed that the parties have to sign the Marriage Certificate Book in the presence of witnesses and that the Marriage Certificate Book cannot be signed by a party through a distant mode.

The primary question before the Court

Whether a certificate of marriage in the Marriage Certificate Book, as prescribed in the 5th Schedule, has to be signed by both parties to the marriage along with three witnesses and whether this process can be done by video conference?

Division Bench ruling

At the outset, the Court referred to Apex Court's ruling in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, 2003 (4) SCC 601, wherein the Top Court had examined the procedure of recording the evidence by way of video conferencing.

Further, the Court noted that as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronic records can be produced as evidence, and thus, even in criminal matters, evidence could also, be taken by way of electronic records and this would include video conferencing.

The Court also referred to the ruling of the Kerala High Court in the case of Pardeep Kodiveedu Cletus vs. Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), 2018 (1) ILR (Kerala) 377, wherein it was ruled that the Local Registrar is empowered to obtain their personal appearance through video conferencing.

Having perused the rulings of various HCs and of the Apex Court, the Court held,

"Hence, for all intents and purposes, under the criminal law, presence of the witness is not necessary before the Court for recording of his evidence. In the same manner, for the purpose of issuing the marriage registration certificate, as held by the High Court of Jharkhand in Upasana Bali and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2013) 1 AIR Jhar R 741, parties to the marriage can appear before the Registering Officer through video conference."

Further, the Court noted that the husband was not seeking his wife's complete exemption from appearance before the Registrar of Marriage, in fact, his prayer was that the wife should be allowed to appear through videoconferencing for marriage registration.

Thus, the Court directed,

"In this case, presence of Misha Verma (Wife) can be secured through video conferencing, and 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 doing 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."

Case title - Ami Ranjan and another v. State of Haryana and another [LPA No.125 of 2021 (O&M) (in CWP No.20480 of 2020)]

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment