Allahabad High Court Bars Lucknow's Arya Samaj Mandir From Solemnizing Marriages Over Failure To Verify Marriageable Age Of Parties
The Allahabad High Court last week barred an Arya Samaj Mandir in Lucknow's Aliganj area from solemnizing marriages and issuing marriage certificates until further orders, after prima facie finding that it was solemnizing marriages without verifying the age of the persons concerned and whether they were of marriageable age.
A Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani passed the interim direction while hearing a writ petition filed by a couple seeking police protection after their marriage.
Briefly put, during the proceedings of the case, the Court had noticed discrepancies in the age recorded in the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector H (Harsh Vihar Puraniya), Aliganj, Lucknow.
Therefore, the bench had called upon the Head of the Temple to explain the basis on which the male petitioner's age had been recorded as 22 years despite his Aadhaar card reflecting that he was around 19 years old.
Pursuant to the Court's earlier order, the Secretary of the institution appeared in person and produced the marriage register along with affidavits furnished by the petitioners and the mother of the male petitioner.
On being queried, he stated that the petitioner's mother had given an affidavit stating that her son was about 22 years of age. However, he admitted that no documentary proof of age had been produced before the marriage was solemnized.
When asked how such an affidavit was accepted without even asking for the Aadhaar card, he failed to point out any provision or rule permitting such a course.
Though he stated that the institution solemnized marriages by relying on Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, he admitted that an affidavit is not permissible under the said provision and that the marriageable age of a male is 21 years under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
The Court also found that all the affidavits, including the affidavit of the petitioner's mother, were on printed proformas, which gave an impression that such proformas had been prepared "so that the marriage may be solemnized in any case, if the persons approach to the Institution".
The bench further noticed that although the stamp papers had been purchased during the evening, counsel for the petitioners could not indicate that the marriage was solemnized in the night.
The Bench also examined the marriage register produced by the institution and observed that it apparently indicated that it had been prepared by a single pen and in one and the same handwriting.
Although the Secretary explained that all entries were made by one person engaged by the institution, the Court recorded its prima facie satisfaction that marriages were being solemnized without proper verification of age.
Observing that the matter raised a serious concern, the Court said:
"…it appears that the marriages are being solemnized in the aforesaid Institution even without verifying the age of the persons concerned and as to whether they are of marriageable age or not and if the marriage of persons, who are not of marriageable age is solemnized, all the concerned involved in the same, have committed crime."
The Bench further observed that Arya Samaj was founded by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, whose beliefs and principles included being "ever ready to imbibe truth and forsake untruth" and abiding by rules framed for social welfare.
However, the Court remarked that it appeared some Arya Samaj institutions were not following those beliefs and principles, and that the present case was one such instance.
On the merits of the petition, the Court also found that the plea for police protection was based merely on apprehension.
It noted that the representation submitted by the petitioners to the Commissioner of Police did not contain the allegations subsequently made in the writ petition and only expressed an apprehension that the woman's parents might implicate the husband and his family members in a false case.
The Court observed that there was no material indicating any threat or coercion at that stage and that, in case of any such threat, the petitioners were at liberty to approach the concerned police station and higher authorities, who were required to take appropriate action in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P.
Having regard to the facts of the case, the High Court directed that the Arya Samaj Mandir be impleaded as a respondent.
It further observed that unless an undertaking is filed on affidavit with the norms which are to be followed for solemnizing marriage by the Arya Samaj and that marriages shall not be solemnized without verification of the age of the parties, the institution could not be permitted to continue solemnizing marriages.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that until further orders, the said Arya Samaj Temple of Lucknow "shall not solemnize any marriage and issue any marriage certificate".
Case title - Neha And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others