Bombay High Court: The present writ petition was filed for a direction to Respondent 2 to grant petitioners marriage certificate pursuant to his application dated 06-02-2023 and to quash and set aside the impugned order by which the application for registration of Petitioner 2’s third marriage, who was a Muslim, was rejected. The grounds of rejection were that the relevant documents were not furnished and that under the (‘the 1998 Act’), and the definition of the word “marriage” in Section 2(b) contemplated only a single marriage and not multiple marriages.
The Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan, JJ., opined that if the contention that only one marriage could be registered under the 1998 Act was accepted then it would mean that the 1998 Act overrides and/or had displaced the personal laws of Muslims. Thus, the Court held that the impugned order would have to be set aside.
The Court opined that the contention that only one marriage could be registered under the 1998 Act was misconceived as there was nothing in the scheme of the 1998 Act which would preclude a muslim male from registering a third marriage. The Court stated that Section 7(1)(a) contemplated that the Registrar must ensure that the marriage between parties was performed in accordance with the personal law of the parties and under the personal laws for Muslims, they were entitled to have four wives at a time. Thus, the Court stated that it could not be accepted that only one marriage could be registered even in the case of a muslim male.
The Court opined that if the contention that only one marriage could be registered under the 1998 Act was accepted then it would mean that the 1998 Act overrides and/or had displaced the personal laws of Muslims. The Court stated that the parties’ personal laws were important and must be considered while deciding whether a particular marriage should be registered or not. Thus, the impugned order would have to be set aside.
The Court noted that authorities under the provisions of the 1998 Act had registered Petitioner 2’s second marriage with a Moroccan citizen.
The Court noted that Petitioner 1-wife was an Algerian passport holder and directed that for her identity proof, her current passport which had expired on 28-05-2024 shall be considered as an application for renewal of the said passport had already been made. The Court stated that all other documents like Aadhar Card or Pan Card or Driving License or Voter ID Card for identity proof, would not be available to her as she was not an Indian citizen. It was also stated that as both petitioners were Muslims, they would also have to submit the Aadhar Card of the Qazi and the Nikah Nama and declaration evidencing the marriage of Petitioner 2-husband with Petitioner 1.
The Court accepted the contention that all the necessary documents should be submitted by petitioners, including the certificate of registration of marriage issued by the very same authority when Petitioner 2 got married to Assia Sadek Benthia and these documents shall be submitted to Respondent 2. The Court directed that once the documents were submitted, Respondent 2 should give a personal hearing to petitioners and their advocates, if necessary, on 19-11-2024 and thereafter, Respondent 2 shall pass a reasoned order either granting registration of the marriage to petitioners or refusing the same and if he refuses the registration of marriage, as contemplated under Section of the , then he should refer the matter to the Registrar General who should then give an opportunity of hearing to petitioners as given under Section 8 and thereafter decide the matter.
The Court disposed of the matter and stated that till the said exercise was completed, Respondents 3, 4, and 5 shall not take any coercive steps to deport Petitioner 1 from India.
The matter would next be listed on 29-11-2024 for compliance.
[Mezouar Zouaouia v. Municipal Corpn., Thane, Writ Petition No. 13773 of 2023, decided on 15-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate a/w Devansh Malhotra i/b Hafeezur Rahman, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Anand S. Kulkarni, Advocate.
The post appeared first on .