{"id":237505,"date":"2008-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-31T22:37:22","modified_gmt":"2015-08-31T17:07:22","slug":"b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\t\t\t\t\t\nDATED : 30\/09\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN\n\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.639 of 2008\nand\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.643 of 2008\n\nB.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose \t\t       ... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1. The Superintendent of Police\n   Kanyakumari District,\n   Nagercoil.\n\n2.  The Inspector of Police\n    Kulasekaram Police Station\n    Kanyakumari District.\n\n3.  Mani\n\n4.  The Inspector General of\n     Registration,\n     Govt. of Tamilnadu.\t\t      ... Respondents\n\n\t\t(4th respondent was impleaded suo-motu by the\n\t\t\tCourt)\n\n\t\tHabeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India praying to direct the respondents to produce petitioner's wife Sheeja,\naged about 24 years before this Court.\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.643 of 2008:\n\n#M. Raju\t\t\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\nVs.\n\n$1.  The Superintendent of Police\n    Kanniyakumari District.\n\n2.  The Sub-Inspector of Police\n    Anju Kirammam Police Station\n    Kanyakumari District.\n\n3.  Paul Rajarathnam\n\n4.  The Inspector General of\n     Registration,\n     Govt. of Tamilnadu.\t\t\t...\t\tRespondents\n\n  (4th respondent was impleaded suo-motu by the Court)\n\t\tHabeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue namely\nJeba Jenitha before this Court.\n\n!For Petitioner in\t...  Mr.C.K.M.Appaji\nHCP No.639\/2008\nFor Petitioner in \t...  Mr.K.Mahendran\nHCP No.643\/2008\n^For Respondents \t...  Mr.N.Senthurpandian,\n1&2 in both HCPs\t     Addl.Public Prosecutor.\nFor Respondent -4\t...  Mr.T.Raja,\nin both HCPs.\t\t     Addl. Advocate General,\n\t\t\t     Assisted by Mr.Pala Ramasamy,\n\t\t\t\tSpl.Govt.Pleader.\n\n\t\t\t...  Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,\n\t\t\t     Amicus Curiae.\n\t\t\t\t\t- - - - -\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
   \t (Order of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN,J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\tBy the common order in the above two habeas corpus petitions,
\ndated 02.09.2008, we have directed as follows.\n<\/p>\n
\t“The petitioner by name M.Raju, S\/o. Murugan of Manikkam Nagar, Kumara
\nPuram Thoppu, Akastiswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District has approached this Court
\nwith Habeas Corpus Petition No.643 of 2008 seeking for a direction to  the
\nsecond respondent Sub-Inspector Police, Anju Kirammam  Police Station,
\nKanyakumari District to produce the body of the detenue namely “Jeba Jenitha”.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.In support of the petition, it is alleged that he and the detenue were
\nfallen in love with each other for the past one year and after a clear
\nunderstanding, they decided to marry.  They appeared before the Parasala Sub-
\nRegistrar Office at Kerala and registered the marriage on 14\/8\/2008 and lived as
\nhusband and wife.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.While they were living in Kerala, the detenue wife of the petitioner
\nwanted to go back to her parents house to get consent for the marriage.
\nAccordingly, she went to her parents house on 20\/8\/2008 and thereafter, she was
\nnot allowed to join with the petitioner.   As she was illegally confined by the
\nthird respondent, he gave a complaint on 23\/8\/2008 to the second respondent and
\nthough it was received on 24\/8\/2008, no action was taken.  Hence, he is
\nconstrained to approach this Court by way of Habeas Corpus Petition No.643 of
\n2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.When this petition came up for hearing on 29\/8\/2008,  it has been
\nbrought to our notice that similar petition has been filed by another petitioner
\nby name  Jagadeesh Chandra Bose in Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P. No.639 of
\n2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we doubted as to
\nunder which provisions of law, these agreements were being registered?
\nAccordingly, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari
\nDistrict to enquire and submit a report as to details of the marriage agreements
\nthat were registered in the said Registrar Office.  Accordingly, a report dated
\n1\/9\/2008 is filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, wherein
\nhe  had replied as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“As per Kerala Registration Rules, the Document No.707\/2008 has been
\nregistered in this Office and the executants of this agreement doesn’t get the
\nstatus of married couple by the above said deed.  The agreement has registered
\nwith the consent of the concerned parties.  They have produced sufficient stamp
\nand fees for the registration.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe detenue cancelled the above noted Marriage Document No.707\/2008
\ndated 14\/8\/2008 vide Marriage Cancellation Document No.760\/-8 dated 26\/8\/2008 of
\nSub-Registrar Office, Parasala, in which she has specifically stated that she
\nnever lived with the petitioner as wife.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.However, the Superintendent of Police had not furnished the
\ndetails of such marriage agreements said to have been registered in the said
\nSub-Registrar’s Office.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7.On the above factual background, we heard the counsel appearing
\nfor the petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1
\nand 2.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8.As far as Habeas Corpus No.643 of 2008 is concerned, the
\npetitioner claims that he has married the detenue and they lived as husband and
\nwife and there was co-habitation.  Hence, the learned counsel had submitted that
\nthe detenue should be secured and send along with the petitioner.  However, we
\nare not inclined to pass such an order on the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9.First of all,  even as per the communication of the Sub-Registrar,
\nParasala dated 14\/8\/2008, it is seen that the agreement does not give any
\nmarital status in law to both the petitioner and detenue.  Mere registration of
\nmarriage as has been done in this case cannot give any legal sanctity to the
\nalleged marriage.   The petitioner cannot claim the  custody of the detenue on
\nthe ground that she is his wife.  Further, the marriage certificate on which the
\npetitioner had placed heavy reliance had been cancelled by the subsequent
\ndocument dated 26\/8\/2008 registered in the same Office.  In these circumstances,
\nthe Habeas Corpus Petition cannot be ordered.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.The petitioner in Habeas Corpus Petition  No.639 of 2008 also
\nclaims that he and the detenue by name Sheeja loved each other and due to love
\naffair, they decided to marry.  They registered their marriage  on 27\/7\/2008 in
\nDocument No.463 of 2007 on the file of the Parasala Sub-Registrar,
\nThiruvananthapuram  and on the first week of August 2008, the factum of marriage
\nwas leaked and the same was brought to the notice of the third respondent and
\ntherefore, the third respondent forcibly took away the detenue from his custody
\nand in spite of his attempt to secure the detenue, he could not succeed and
\ntherefore, he preferred a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Kulasekaram
\nPolice Station on 23\/8\/2008.  As the said complaint was not acted  upon,  a
\nrepresentation was made to the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District on
\n25\/8\/2008, but no effective steps have been taken to secure the girl.  Hence
\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.639 of 2008 is filed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.In this case also, the report of Superintendent of Police,
\nKanyakumari District dated 1\/9\/2008 is filed.  On a perusal of the report shows
\nthat pursuant to the order of this Court, enquiry was made and the
\nSuperintendent of Police  had received communication dated 30\/8\/2008 from Sub-
\nRegistrar, Parasala which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“The detenue Sheeja says that the petition was filed by the petitioner only with
\nthe ulterior motive to take over the detenue under his custody and she says that
\nshe is not interested to live with him but she is willing to live with her
\nparents.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.Even though the  detenue is not willing to go along with the
\npetitioner, having regard to the fact that the marriage itself is not recognised
\nunder law and the marriage certificate that was registered in Parasala, Sub-
\nRegistrar’s Office  has no legal sanctity, the claim of the petitioner  that he
\nis the husband of the detenue,  cannot be accepted and accordingly, the detenue
\ncannot be ordered to be sent along with the petitioner.  Hence,the Habeas Corpus
\nPetition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13.While hearing the matters,  Mr. Ajmal Khan learned counsel who is
\npresent in the Court had brought to our notice that similar marriage agreements
\nare registered in various Sub-Registrar’s Office in the Tamil Nadu as well.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14.This Court has posed the question as to  how the Sub-Registrars
\nare entertaining such marriage agreements for registration.  In fact, in Habeas
\nCorpus Petition No.639 of 2008, the petitioner is a converted Christian from
\nScheduled Caste Shambavar Community and the detenue is a Christian Nadar
\nBackward Community.  Whether the marrige can be performed either under the
\nChristian Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act itself is in question.
\nIn these circumstances, mere registration of the marriage  throw serious doubt
\nand that too in the very same Sub-Registrar Office.  This Court had taken note
\nof the fact that in recent time, a tendency of creating fake marriages have
\nbecome popular and under the guise of such marriages, women are being indulged
\nin trafficking and for commercial exploitation.  In fact, such marriage
\nagreements are being registered in the State of Tamil Nadu as well presumably
\nnot for the  intended purpose to live as husband and wife,  but for some
\nextraneous purposes.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15.In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the
\nInspector General  of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu should be impleaded
\nas one of the respondents in both the Habeas Corpus Petitions to find out as to
\nthe registration of such marriage agreements in the office of the Sub-
\nRegistrar\/Registrars in the statement of Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16.Accordingly, The Inspector General of Registration, Government of
\nTamil  Nadu is impleaded and he is directed to furnish the details of such
\nmarriage agreement registered in the State of Tamil Nadu for the last one year
\ncommencing from 1\/1\/2007.  Such reports had to be filed before this Court giving
\ndetails of such registration on or before 26\/9\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17.Mr.Ajmal Khan learned counsel is also appointed as Amicus Curiae
\nto assist the Court to resolve the dispute.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t2.Pursuant to the above direction, the Inspector General of
\nRegistration, Chennai, has filed a report giving a list of yearwise registration
\nof Marriage Agreements in the State of Tamil Nadu, which reads as under.\n<\/p>\n
Sl.No.\tName of the Registration Zone\tYear-2007   Year-2008\tTotal<\/p>\n
1.\tCoimbatore\t\t\tNil\t\tNil\tNil\n<\/p>\n
2.\tTanjore\t\t\t\tNil\t\tNil\tNil
\n3\tSalem\t\t\t\tNil\t\tNil\tNil\n<\/p>\n
4.\tVellore\t\t\t\t1\t\t –\t  1
\n5\tChennai\t\t\t\t1\t\t  1\t  2\n<\/p>\n
6.\tCuddalore\t\t\t1\t\t  3  \t  3\n<\/p>\n
7.\tTiruchy\t\t\t\t10\t\t  6 \t 16\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThirunelveli\t\t\t229\t\t123\t352\n<\/p>\n
9.\tMadurai\t\t\t\t268\t\t 90\t358<\/p>\n
\tTOTAL\t\t\t\t509\t\t223\t732<\/p>\n
\t \t\t3.Apart from giving the above details as to the registration
\nof Marriage Agreements, the Inspector General of Registration has also stated
\nthat there is no prohibition in the Registration Act or the Stamp Act to refuse
\noutright the documents presented for registration.  He would also state, as
\nearly as on 21.04.1981, the Inspector General of Registration had issued orders
\nfor Registering Officers to desist from registering such marriage agreements.
\nSubsequently, another order was also passed on similar lines by the Inspector
\nGeneral of Registration on 15.12.2003 and inspite of these two orders, it is
\nstill found that such documents are continuously registered and the same is
\nbrought to the attention of the Inspector General of Registration.  He would
\nalso state that such marriages are not legally valid and registration of such
\nmarriages will create unsolvable problems not only for the executants but also
\nto their children.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t4.On the above backdrop, we heard Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned
\ncounsel, appointed to assist the Court and Mr.T.Raja, learned Additional
\nAdvocate  General.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t5.Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, amicus curiae, took us extensively to
\nvarious provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The Special Marriage Act, 1954,
\nThe Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the
\nRegistration Act, 1908 as well as the Tamil Nadu Hindu Marriages (Registration)
\nRules, 1967.  In nutshell, he would submit that each of the Acts by itself is a
\nseparate Code, not only providing for solemnization of the marriage but also the
\nmanner by which such marriages should be registered by the empowered Registrars.
\nHe would submit that as none of the provisions of the above Acts recognize
\nregistration of marriage agreements, without there being proper marriage as per
\nthe respective enactments and without there being a proper application made, the
\nprocedure adopted by the various Registrars in entertaining such marriage
\nagreements and registering the same would only pave way for abuse of such
\ndocuments, resulting in abuse of the girls who are shown as a party to the
\nagreements.  He would, therefore, submit that in the absence of any legal
\nsanctity attached to such marriages, it would be proper and justifiable to pass
\nan order of injunction restraining all the Registrars\/Sub-Registrars from
\nentertaining and registering such marriage agreements.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t6.Mr.T.Raja, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other
\nhand, would submit that there is no provision in the Registration Act or the
\nRules made thereunder prohibiting registration of documents.  He would rely upon
\nSection 34 of the Registration Act, which contemplates enquiry by the
\nRegistering Officer before the registration and Rules 54 and 55 of the
\nRegistration Rules which empower the registering authority to verify as to
\nwhether the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons
\nthey profess to be; whether the document is forged; whether the person appearing
\nas a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity,
\nwhether the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying
\nfor registration; or that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a
\nlunatic.  Hence, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in the
\nabsence of provisions contrary, the registering authority cannot refuse to
\nregister the document presented before him.  He would also submit in this
\ncontext that an amendment was brought in by the Tamil Nadu Act 48 of 1997 with
\neffect from 28.08.1997 inserting Section 22-A in the Registration Act empowering
\nthe State Government to notify in the Tamil Nadu Gazette declaring that
\nregistration of any document or clause of document is opposed to public policy.
\nPursuant to the said provision, the Government Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.150
\nCommercial Taxes Department, dated 22nd September, 2000 declaring certain
\ndocuments and registration of such documents would be opposed to public policy.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t7.The Apex Court had struck down Section 22-A of the Act in
\nthe Judgment reported in 2005 (4) CTC 606 – State of Rajasthan  vs.  Basant
\nNahata.  Similarly, the Notification,<\/a> dated 22.09.2000 was also quashed by the
\nHigh Court and, therefore, the said notification was revoked in G.O.Ms.No.1l39,
\nCommercial Taxes Department, dated 25.07.2007.  In view of the above, learned
\nAdditional Advocate General would submit that there is no provision as on today
\nrestraining the registering authority from entertaining Marriage Agreements for
\nregistration.  He would also submit that nevertheless, having regard to the fact
\nthat registrants used to enter into agreements to live as husband and wife,
\nwithout proper marriage being duly solemnized and  registered under the relevant
\nmarriage Act and when  there are specific provisions in the Marriage Acts for
\ndissolution of marriage, the registrants unaware of the same entering into
\nagreements for divorce, the Government proposed to bring in an amendment to
\nRegistration Act by inserting Section 21-A and by that amendment, among other
\nthings, the registering officer is directed not to register any document
\nevidencing any agreement relating to marriage or to live together as husband and
\nwife, divorce, restraining marriages, trade, legal proceedings or bonded labour.
\nHence, learned Additional Advocate General has expressed the difficulty of the
\nGovernment to presently directing the registering authority to refrain from
\nregistering marriage agreements.  He would also draw our attention to Section
\n7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act relating to Suyamariyathai and seerthiruthatha
\nmarriage.  According to the learned Additional Advocate General, in view of the
\nsaid provision, a marriage, if performed under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage
\nAct, can be registered in the manner done presently and therefore such
\nregistration of marriage agreement cannot be said to be against law.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t8.We have carefully considered the above submissions.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t9.We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with the
\npetitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relating to
\nillegal custody\/detention.  As far as the facts leading to the present habeas
\ncorpus petitions are concerned, we have referred the same in the  earlier
\nportion of this order, and, therefore, we are not once again reproducing the
\nfacts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t10.The concern of the Court to direct the Inspector General of
\nRegistration to furnish details as to the number of Marriage Agreements
\nregistered through out the State of Tamil Nadu from 01.01.2007 onwards was
\nobvious.  In the given two cases, when such marriage agreements were registered
\nand when habeas corpus petitions were entertained and the Superintendent of
\nPolice of Kanyakumari District was directed to file a report, in one case, the
\nalleged detenue, who was also a party to such marriage agreement, had written to
\nthe Superintendent of Police stating that the petition was filed by the alleged
\nhusband with an ulterior motive to take the her  under his custody and she is
\nnot interested to live with him.  She has also expressed her willingness to live
\nwith her parents.  In another habeas corpus petition, though the petitioner
\nclaimed that a marriage agreement was registered on 14.08.2008, the same was
\ncancelled by the detenue (the girl) on 26.08.2008 indicating that the marriage
\nagreement was either forceful or fake.  Hence, we entertained a serious and
\ngenuine doubt over the registration of such marriage agreements, as to whether
\nsuch marriage agreements are registered either with the consent of the concerned
\ngirls; or only in order to misuse such girls under the cover of the registration
\nof the marriage agreements and without resorting to the various provisions of
\nthe respective Laws governing marriages and the consequential registration.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t11.Only under these circumstances, we directed the Inspector
\nof General of Registration to submit a report and the registration of marriage
\nagreements is not a welcoming factor.  As many as 732 marriage agreements were
\nregistered in various districts, especially in Tirunelveli Zone alone, in the
\nyear 2007, 229 marriage agreements were registered, apart from 123 in the year
\n2008 and in all 352 marriage agreements were registered.  In Madurai Zone,
\nduring the year 2007, 268 of such marriage agreements have been registered and
\nin the year 2008, 90 such agreements were registered and in all 358 agreements
\nwere registered.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t12.The above particulars take us to the rival contentions of
\nthe respective counsel.  The marriage agreements are produced before the Sub-
\nRegistrars or the Registrars, as the case may be, and they are registered.  The
\nmarriages are not solemnized in accordance with the respective enactments.
\nHence marriages themselves are not valid as per law and a mere registration of
\nsuch marriage agreements will not give any legal status to the spouses.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t13.Insofar as the Hindu marriages are concerned, Section 5 of
\nthe Hindu Marriages Act contemplates conditions for a Hindu marriage, section 7
\nrelates to ceremonies and Section 8 relates to registration of Hindu Marriages.
\nUnless conditions under Section 5 relating to a valid consent and either of the
\nspouse is not insane, the bride groom has completed 21 years and bride completes
\n18 years and they are not within the prohibited degrees and are not sapindas,
\nmarriage cannot be solemnized.  Unless there is solemnization marriage, it
\ncannot be performed as per the ceremonies under Section 7 and consequently
\nregistration of such marriage under Section 8 cannot be done.  Rule 5 of the
\nTamil Nadu Hindu Marriage (Registration) Rules, 1969, contemplates compulsory
\nregistration of marriage and the mode of application for registration.
\nApplications are to be made in Form-I, along with application in Form-III, for
\nregistration of Hindu Marriage on the date of solemnization and a declaration is
\nalso provided as per Rule 10 in Form No.III by the husband and wife where the
\nmarriage is registered on the date of solemnization.  Unless conditions under
\nSections 5 and 7 are fulfilled, the marriage cannot be registered under Section
\n8 and the registration of the marriage should also be in conformity with the
\nRules referred to above.  Without following the above, a Hindu Marriage cannot
\nbe registered.  Further, registration of the marriage cannot be equated to a
\nregistration of marriage agreement.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t14.Under The Indian Christian Marriage Act, Section 60
\ncontemplates conditions of marriage, where both the spouses should be Christians
\nand again the bride groom must be over 21 years and the bride should be over 18
\nyears, apart from some other conditions.  Part-VI of the said Act contemplates a
\nnotice of intended marriage before  registration of marriage, filing a copy of
\nthe notice to be entered into the marriage notice book, issue a certificate of
\nnotice and the oath made thereon, issue an oath before the issue of certificate,
\nthe consent of father or guardian and thereafter filing  petition for
\nregistration.  For a false oath, declaration, oath or a certificate for
\nprocuring marriage, a penalty is also contemplated under Section 66 of the Act.
\nHence, a procedure is contemplated for the marriage and for the consequential
\nregistration of such marriage and issue of certificates.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t15.In terms of Section 3 of the Special Marriages Act,
\nmarriage officers are appointed by the Government by notifying in the official
\ngazette. Section 4 contemplates conditions relating to solemnization of special
\nmarriages.  Section-5 contemplates notice to intended marriage for a period not
\nless than 30 days immediately preceding the date of such notice.  Section 6
\ncontemplates notice book and publication.  Section 7 contemplates objection to
\nmarriage.  Section 8 contemplates procedure on receipt of petition and an
\nenquiry as contemplated by the Marriage Officers in terms of Section 9.
\nThereafter, the marriage is registered and a certificate could be issued under
\nSection 3.  A procedure is also contemplated under Chapter-III for registration
\nof marriages celebrated in other forms.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t \t16.On the above backdrop of the specific provisions, any
\nmarriage, which is not solemnized as per the respective provisions of Laws,
\ncannot be recognized as a valid marriage and consequently the same cannot be
\nregistered.  Further, such marriage registration must be by following the
\nprocedures provided under the respective enactments.  Under
\nthese circumstances, a mere presentation of documents for registration of
\nmarriage cannot by itself confer any legal status to the parties and such
\nregistration of marriage would be contrary to the procedures provided under the
\nrespective enactments.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t17.Insofar as the submission of the learned Additional
\nAdvocate General as to the Suyamariyathai and Seerthiruththa marriages is
\nconcerned, here again, under Section 7-A, the procedure as contemplated under
\nthe Section to recognize the marriage alone is dispensed with and made optional.
\nNevertheless, in terms of Section 8 of the Act, registration is compulsory and
\nmust be done only in accordance with Section 8 of the Act and the corresponding
\nrules, namely Rule 5 and Form Nos.I and II of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t18.Of course, Section 22-A of the Act was struck down by the
\nApex Court on the ground that the term “opposed to public policy” was vague and
\nconsequently the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.150, Commercial Taxes Department,
\ndated 22.09.2000 was also quashed by this Court.  In our opinion, in terms of
\nRule 162-A of the Registration Rules, no registration officer shall accept for
\nregistration any document or service agreement evidencing bonded labour or
\ntransaction constituting any offence under any law or opposed to public policy
\nor morality.  Though Section 22-A was struck
\ndown on the ground that the power conferred on the Government to direct the
\nRegistrars not to register certain documents as opposed to public policy, in the
\nteeth of other conditions, particularly transaction constituting an offence
\nunder any law or morality, the registration of marriage agreement without
\nfollowing any of the procedures of the respective enactments cannot be
\npermitted.  Of course, knowing the serious implications of registration of such
\nmarriage agreements, the Government themselves have come out with a draft
\namendment proposing to insert Section 21-A in the Registration Act whereby under
\nSection 21-A(3), directing the registering officer not to register any document
\nevidencing any agreement relating to marriage or to live together as husband and
\nwife, etc.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t19.Under these circumstances, in order to curtail  the  misuse
\nof  such  marriage  agreements,   whereby the  hapless  women  may  also
\npossibly  be  misused,    we  deem  it  necessary  that the Registrars and Sub-
\nRegistrars  under  the  control  of  the  Inspector  General of Registration,
\nGovernment of Tamilnadu,  should be restrained  from  entertaining any  marriage
\nagreements  produced  without following the mandatory provisions of respective
\nenactments and consequently registering them. Accordingly, there will be an
\norder of injunction.   This order shall be communicated by the Inspector General
\nof Registration to all the Registrars and Sub-Registrars empowered to register
\nthe marriages under respective enactments applicable to the parties to such
\nregistration of marriages.  We place our appreciation on record as to the
\nvaluable assistance rendered by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel, appointed by
\nthis Court as amicus curiae to assist the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t20.With the above order and direction, the habeas corpus
\npetitions shall stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
gb.\n<\/p>\n
1.The Inspector General of  Registration,
\n  Government of Tamil Nadu,
\n  Chennai-4.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30\/09\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.639 of 2008 and Habeas Corpus Petition No.643 of 2008 B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose … Petitioner […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-31T17:07:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-31T17:07:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3781,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008\",\"name\":\"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-31T17:07:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-31T17:07:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-31T17:07:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008"},"wordCount":3781,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008","name":"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-31T17:07:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jagadeesh-chandra-bose-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.Jagadeesh Chandra Bose vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237505","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237505\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}