Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ petition filed by a purohit working at Kalaram Temple in Nashik, challenging a condition in a circular issued by the Registering Authority (Registrar of Marriages) of Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998. The circular mandated that the priest who performed the marriage must be present before the Registrar and sign the memorandum of marriage as a witness. The petitioner argued that this condition was not required by the Act, caused him significant hardship as he performed numerous marriages and would be forced to travel to various registration offices, disrupting his livelihood. The respondent authority defended the circular on the ground that it was necessary to prevent fake marriages. The court examined the statutory provisions, particularly Section 6(1)(b) of the Act, which explicitly requires only the parties and three witnesses to appear before the Registrar and sign the memorandum. It also noted that Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not mandate the presence of a priest for a valid Hindu marriage, making the engagement of a purohit a matter of personal faith or volition. The court observed that some communities, like Satyashodhak Samaj, do not employ priests at all, making the condition impractical. The court held that the condition lacked rational basis, was not in consonance with the Act, and was exfacie arbitrary. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the offending condition, and made the rule absolute with no costs.
Headnote
A) Marriage Registration - Witness Requirement - Priest/Purohit Presence Not Mandatory - Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998, Section 6(1)(b) - The Registering Authority issued a circular requiring the priest who performed the marriage to be present as a witness for signing the memorandum. The petitioner, a purohit, challenged this condition as not provided under the Act and causing hardship. The Court held that Section 6(1)(b) only requires the parties and three witnesses, and the condition is arbitrary and ultra vires the Act. Held, circular condition quashed (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition in the circular mandating presence of the priest/purohit who performed the marriage as a witness for registration is valid and in consonance with the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The condition imposed by respondent no.1 in the circular requiring presence of the Priest/Purohit as a witness to the marriage for signing of memorandum of marriage in the presence of respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 6(1)(b) of Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act
- 1998 only requires parties and three witnesses
- no priest required
- Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955 does not mandate priest presence
- circular imposing additional condition is arbitrary and ultra vires
