# SEEMA v. ASHWANI KUMAR

- **Citation:** [2008] 10 S.C.R. 566
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-07-09
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P .. SAT~ASl.VAM
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/seema-v-ashwani-kumar-23478
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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
E
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
·
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.
H
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
566
,.._
•
y
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
B
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
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 mat

## Text

A
B
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 566
SEEMA
v.
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
E
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
·
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.
H
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
566
,.._
•
y
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
B
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
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
SEEMA v. ASHWANI KUMAR
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
569
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 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. ,