MP High Court Suspends Notary License For Registering Marriage Despite Express Bar, Seeks Explanation

The Madhya Pradesh High Court suspended the license of a Notary Public for preparing a marriage document, despite a specific bar issued by the Central Government on notary officers' from executing marriage or divorce deeds as they are not marriage officers. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 277]

The division bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla after perusing the notarised document in the present case, reiterated that a notary has no jurisdiction to act as a marriage officer.

The bench also referred to office memorandum dated October 10, 2024 issued by Ministry of Law and Justice which restrained notaries from executing any document pertaining to marriage. The memo states that "Notaries appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 should desist themselves from executing marriage or divorce deeds as they are not appointed as Marriage Officers. Such actions on their part are against the extant law"

However, the bench noted that notaries are still passing such order in "utter defiance of the orders" and thus said:

"If the heading of the notarized document is seen, then it appears that Raghavendra Samadhiya, Notary Public, had acted as a Registration Officer. Even it is also clear from the statement made by the corpus that she was given an impression that she has performed the Court marriage...

This is a glaring example of the misadventurous act of the Notary who by executing the
ववाह वाद
ववाह के पंजीयन बावत िलखतम has exceeded his jurisdiction. In view of various orders passed by this Court, as well as the office memorandum dated 10.10.2024 issued by the Union of India, issue notice to Shri Raghvendra Samadhiya, Notary Public, Datia to show cause as to why a direction may not be given to the competent authority to cancel his licence. Since Shri Raghvendra Samadhiya, Notary Public, Datia has exceeded his jurisdiction, thereby spoiling the rights of the persons by registering the so-called marriage, therefore, the licence of Shri Raghvendra Samadhiya to act as a Notary Public Datia shall remain under suspended animation and he shall immediately stop functioning as Notary Public Datia."

The court also directed the notary to produce his original register dated 27.06.2026 containing Serial No.106 (Notary Register No.2). 

The court was considering a plea by one Chandrapal Singh Parihar alleging that his wife is in illegal detention of respondent no 3, who is the father of the corpus-wife. 

After production before the court, the corpus claimed that she was residing in the house of Vikram Singh and his family members, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. 

The corpus alleged that she was pressurised to marry by the petitioner, who was her friend. She further submitted that the petitioner threatened that if she did not marry him, he would publish her photographs on Instagram and Facebook. 

Per the corpus, she narrated these facts to her parents, who also tried to convince the petitioner, but he continued threatening her. Thus, out of fear, she went to live with the petitioner. She further claimed that they went to the Datia court and a court marriage was performed. 

The corpus further claimed that while in the Datia court, they met a lawyer who obtained their signatures on certain papers and a register and then assured them the court marriage had been performed. Thereafter, garlands were exchanged outside the court. She specifically denied that any Saptapadi (rituals) was performed. She also shared her desire to reside with her parents and pursue her studies. 

The court noted that the case diary contained a written notarised document titled 'ववाह वाद
ववाह के पंजीयन बावत िलखतम' (Document regarding registration of marriage) which was notarised by the notary public Raghavendra Samadhiya. 

From the case diary, the bench noted the corpus's statements that she was threatened by petitioners and, after recovery, made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police in Gwalior. 

The counsel for the State submitted that the complaint made by the corpus is under active consideration and that if the petitioner has committed a criminal offence, then appropriate action should be taken under BNS, IT or other provisions. 

The court directed the police authorities to complete the exercise within 10 days from the date of the order.

The court noted that no marriage took place between the corpus and the petitioner and that she wishes to reside with her parents. The court directed the police to hand over the custody to the parents and dismissed the petitioner's case. 

Case Title: Chandrapal Singh Parihar v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-26269-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 277

For Petitioner: Advocate Shashwat Rao 

For State: Government Advocate CP Singh 

Click here to read/download the Order