Madras High Court Stays Single Judge Order Allowing Couple To Solemnize Marriage Virtually Under Special Marriage Act

The division bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice Victoria Gowri was hearing the appeal preferred by Sub Registrar Manavalakurichi against the order of Justice GR Swaminathan.

The Sub registrar submitted that the single judge had erred in not properly comprehending the facts of the case.It was also submitted that even if the bride affixes her signature in the declaration form on her behalf and on behalf of the bridegroom based on the power of attorney given to her, the solemnization is to be performed physically. Thus, the question of granting permission for virtual solemnization will not arise, it was submitted. 

The appellant also submitted that the court had made a reference to a speech by Swami Vivekananda discussing the story of Ramayana where Ram had placed a golden statue of Sita for performing a ceremony and substituted her physical presence. It was submitted that this reference was misplaced as Ram had substituted the statute after marriage while here the parties were seeking permission to solemnize the very marriage.

It was further submitted that the single judge had criticised the Registrar for not registering the marriage when the couple appeared before it after the expiry of 30 days. According to the Sub-registrar, the marriage could not be solemnized at that time as objections were received from the family of the couple. Thus the authority had not committed any default in this case and thus the observation of the court was misconceived, it was argued.

The appellant also submitted that reference to Singapore's Covid-19 (Temporary Measures for Solemnization and Registration of Marriage) Act 2020 and the Hanafi school of thought in Pakistan were misplaced as the facts in the case were different.

Case Title: The Sub Registrar v. Vasmi Sudarshini

Case No: WA (MD) No. 168 of 2022