Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary action against the advocates who performed the marriage of a couple and issued a self respect marriage certificate to the couple. 

Court also asked the state bar council to initiate disciplinary action against the lawyers who are conducting marriages in secrecy of their offices all over Tamil Nadu by issuing fake certificates.

"We are wondered as to how the Advocates are authorised to perform special marriages in their office or Trade Union," said the division bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice R Vijayakumar.

Referring to the judgment in S.Balakrishnan Pandiyan vs. the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District and Others (2014), the bench observed:

"A perusal of the above decision makes it clear that the marriage performed by the Advocates in their office is not a valid marriage, unless the marriage is registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009, and the physical appearance of the parties to the marriage before the Registrar is essential."

Court noted that in the matter at hand, allegedly the marriage had been performed on April 24, 2023 only in the presence of Kanagasabai M.A.B.L., and Balamurugan, Deputy Secretary of State Legal Wing, District Trade Union, Tiruppur, who claimed to be advocates. 

The court, therefore, held that the marriage was not a valid one. 

The court was dealing with a habeas corpus plea filed by a man who alleged that he had a love affair with the detenue for a few years but since the detenue was a minor at that time, they decided to get married after some time.

In the meanwhile, the parents of the detenue performed a child marriage without her volition, the petitioner claimed.

Moreover, the petitioner alleged that when the detenue left her parental house and voluntarily came to his house, he and the detenue got married on April 24, 2023. As per the petitioner, a special marriage was conducted in the presence of Advocates and office bearers of the Trade Union, under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The petitioner claimed that thereafter, on May 3, the father of the detenue came to his house and forcibly took the detenue away. 

While holding the said marriage between the detenue and the petitioner not valid, the division bench pointed out that the earlier marriage performed by the parents of the detenue was not questioned either by the detenue or her parents.

"Hence, the earlier marriage performed by the parents of the detenue is perfectly valid and the subsequent marriage performed in the presence of the advocates and officer bearers of the Trade Union is invalid," held the court. 

Apart from that, court ordered disciplinary action against the lawyers who are conducting these types of marriages in Tamil Nadu and said that the Law Enforcing Agency is also at liberty to proceed against such lawyers in the manner known to law.

Case Title: Ilavarasan v The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram and Others