SEEMAversusASHWANI KUMAR

                        [2008] 10 S.C.R. 566


A                              SEEMA
                                  v.                                     ,.._
                        ASHWANI KUMAR
              (Transfer Petition (C).No. 291 .of 2005 )
                           JULY 9, 2008
B
       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.. SAT~ASl.VAM, .,!J.]

        Family Law:
       Registration of marriage -:-. Directions by Supreme Court
C to States and Union Territories to frame necessary s(ati.Jtes
  regarding compulsory registration of marriages - ~on-'com­
  pliance of-: Held: States and Union Territories which did not
  give specific details of comp!lance diretted to file affidavits
  within four months.
D
         Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2006) 2 SCC 578 and .Seema
    v. Ashwani Kumar (2008) 1 SCC 180 - referred to.
        CIVIL OR!GINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil)
    No.291 of2005               ·
E      Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.) Dinesh Dwivedi, K.A. Dewan Balraj
  Dewan, Mukesh Verma, Manish Shanker Srivastava, Yash Pal
  Dhingra, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ajay Sharma, NeelamSharma,
  Gopal Singh, Ritu Raj Biswas, S~_antanu Krishna, Anuvrat
  Sharma, Kamini Jaiswal, Suparna S~ivastava, N~eraj Gupta,
F Rajesh Srivastava, Aruneswhar Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh,          y•
  Shashwat Gupta, Sanjay R. Hegde, Avijit Roy, Rlku Sarma (for
  Mis. Corporate Law Group) Kuldeep Singh, Jana Kalyan Das,
  K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathi~h. D.S. Mahra, Sunita Sharma,
  A. Subhashini, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur (for Mis.
G Arputham, Aruna & Co.) Hemantika 'Wahi,· Pinky, Jesal, U.
  Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Sumita Hazarika, K.H. Nobin Singh,
  Tarun Jamwal, David Rao, S. Biswajit Meitei, Vijay Prakash,
  P.V. Dinesh, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu

H                               566
                            SEEMA v. ASHWANI KUMAR                       567
_,,                          [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

         Ramasubramanian, Naveen Sharma, Vikas Upadhyay, B.S.                    A
         Banthia, Ranjan Mukherjee, Naresh K. Sharma, Manjit Singh,
         Harikesh Singh, T.V. George, Anil Shrivastav, Ritu Raj, Manish
         Kumar Saran, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Chinmoy Khaladkar,
         Sanjay Kharde, Asha G. Nair, J.K. Bhatia, B.N. Jha, D.M.
         Nargolkar, V.N. Raghupathy, Nandini Gore, K.R. Sasiprabhu,              ~
         D. Bharathi Reddy and Anil Katiyar for the appearing parties.
              The Judgment df the Court was delivered by
                                                   .
              DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In this case directions were
         given to the States and the Union Territories in the matter of C'
         framing necessary· statutes regarding compulsory registration
         of marriages. By order dated 14.2.2006 (reported in Seema v.
         Ashwani Kumar (2006(2) SCC 578) following directions were
         given:
J
    -~        (i)    The procedure for registration should be notified by D
                     respective States within three months from today.
                     This can be done by amending the existing rules, if
                     any, or by framing new rules. However, objections
                     from members of the public shall be invited before
                     bringing the said rules into force. In this connection, E
                     due publicity shall be given by the States and the
                     matter shall be kept oven for objections for a period
                     of one month from the date of advertisement inviting
                     objections. On the expiry of the said period, the States
    >
    "(               shall issue appropriate notification bringing the rules F
                     into force.
              (ii)   The officer appointed under the said rules of the
                     States shall be duly authorized to register the
                     marriages. The age, marital status (unmarried,
                     divorcee)" shall be clearly stated.The consequence          G
                     of non-registration of marriages or for filing false
                     declaration shall also be provided for in the said
                     rules. Needless to add that the object of the said
                     rules shall be to carry out the directions of this Court.
                                                                                 H
    568          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A         (iii) As and when the Central Government enacts a
                comprehensive statute, the same shall be placed
                before this Court for scrutiny.
          (iv)   Learned counsel for various States and Union
                 Territories shall ensure that the directions given herein
B                are carried out immediately."
        Subsequently by order dated 25.10.2007 further directions
  were given. (see: Seema V. Ashwani Kumar 2008(1) sec 180).
  Particular reference was made to the earlier observations to
c the effect that marriages of all persons who are citizens of India
  belonging to various religions should be made compulsorily
  registered in their respective States where the marriages have
  been organized. Different States and the Union Territories have
  placed on record details of the compliance made when the
  matter was taken upon on 28.4.2008. It was stated that four
0
  States namely: Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerela and Haryana
  have already final rules. So far as the State of Punjab is cnn-
  cerned it was submitted that the Bill has been prepared and it
  is to be placed before tne Legislative Assembly. Further it is
  stated that the draft rules have been prepared in the States of
E Arunachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. It was further stated on
  behalf of tbe Union Territory of Pondicherry that the matter was
  referred to the Central Government because the issues of spe-
  cial starter is concerned. So far as the State of Uttrakhand is
  concerned it was stated that the rules have been framed in the
F year 2006 and the matter is pending consideration because of
  certain suggestions made by the Home Ministry. So far as the
  State of Maharashtra is concerned it was submitted that though
  with effect from 15.5.1999, certain modifications are necessary
  as the marriages under the said Marriage Act are not directly
G covered. So far as the State of Sikkim is concerned it was
  stated that the Jules have been notified on 9.8.2007 and in the
  State of Mizoram an Act has been enacted on 24.2.2007. 7An
  affidavit in this.regard is to. be filed. So far as the State of
  Manipur is concerned it is stated that the Bill has already been
H introduced in the Assembly in February, 2008. So far as the
                 SEEMA v. ASHWANI KUMAR                     569
                  [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

State of Assam is concerned it was further submitted that the        A
Bills are under consideration.
      Learned counsel for the ~tate of Tamil Nadu stated that he
wants to find out whether any Statute has been introduced on '
26.2.2007 and file additional affidavit. It was submitted on be-
half of the State of Chhatisgarh that the necessary Statute has , 8
been enacted. On 20.11.2006 let all States and Union Territo- '
ries who have not given specific details file an affidavit within
four months from today.
     List after Four months.
B.B.B.                                   List after four months. ,