Seema v. Ashwani Kumar

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Judgment Date: 2008-07-09
Court Decision / Holding: Directs States and Union Territories to frame and notify a registration procedure within three months, invite objections for one month, and issue notifications to bring rules into force; empower the registering officer; specify penalties for non-registration or false declarations; central government to place a comprehensive statute before the Court for scrutiny when enacted; all states/UTs to file affidavits within four months detailing compliance and status; further proceedings/listing after four months.
Final Disposition: Disposal with directions directing compliance affidavits within four months and continued monitoring; next listing after four months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Seema

Respondents

Ashwani Kumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ranjit Kumar
• Dinesh Dwivedi
• K.A. Dewan
• Balraj Dewan
• Mukesh Verma
• Manish Shanker Srivastava
• Yash Pal Dhingra
• Tara Chandra Sharma
• Ajay Sharma
• Neelam Sharma
• Gopal Singh
• Ritu Raj Biswas
• Santanu Krishna
• Anuvrat Sharma
• Kamini Jaiswal
• Suparna Sivastava
• Neeraj Gupta
• F Rajesh Srivastava
• Riku Sarma
• Kuldeep Singh
• Jana Kalyan Das
• K.N. Madhusoodhanan
• R. Sathish
• D.S. Mahra
• Sunita Sharma
• A. Subhashini
• A. Mariarputham

Counsels for Respondents

• 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

Case Synopsis & Summary

This transfer petition arises from a Court-directed framework requiring compulsory registration of marriages across Indian states and union territories. The Court, in prior orders (notably Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, 2006 (2) SCC 578) and a subsequent 2007 directive, mandated that states notify a registration procedure within three months, amend or enact rules to implement the registration, invite public objections for at least one month, and issue appropriate notifications to bring the rules into force. The order also required that the registering officer be clearly empowered and that the consequences of non-registration or false declarations be specified. The central objective is to operationalize the Court’s directions to ensure marriage registration under various religious laws. By the 2008 proceedings, states and UTs presented compliance affidavits detailing the status of compliance; some states (Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Haryana) reported final rules, while others indicated ongoing drafting or legislative action, with several states awaiting central guidance. The Court recalled that, where necessary, a comprehensive central statute should be placed before the Court for scrutiny. On 20.11.2006, every state/UT still lacking specifics was directed to file affidavits within four months; the matter was then listed for further proceedings after the four-month interval. The current order continues the monitoring and demands further compliance. The judgment underscores the need for uniform, enforceable marriage registration across jurisdictions while preserving the Court’s supervisory role.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Seema v. Ashwani Kumar	(2006) 2 SCC 578	Mentioned Only	Cited as the authority establishing the directive for compulsory marriage registration and the procedural framework.
Seema v. Ashwani Kumar	(2008) 1 SCC 180	Mentioned Only	Cited in reference to ongoing compliance and progress in the registration scheme.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 566 A ## SEEMA _v._ B ASHWANI KUMAR (Transfer Petition (C).No. 291 .of 2005 ) JULY 9, 2008 **[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, 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 • y H 566 SEEMA _v._ ASHWANI KUMAR 567 _,, ## [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] Ramasubramanian, Naveen Sharma, Vikas Upadhyay, B.S. 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. A ~ 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 [2008] 10 S.C.R. ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS - 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 0[matter was taken upon on 28.4.2008. It was stated that four ] States namely: Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerela and Haryana have already final rules. So far as the State of Punjab is cnncerned 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 special 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 569 SEEMA _v._ ASHWANI KUMAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] A State of Assam is concerned it was further submitted that the 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 behalf 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. ,