Allahabad High Court| Arya Samaj Certificates not enough to prove legality of marriage; Petition of habeas corpus dismissed

Allahabad High Court

   

Allahabad High Court: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. dismissed a habeas corpus petition holding that the certificates issued by Arya Samaj alone do not prove the legality of a marriage.

The petition was filed alleging that corpus was wife of petitioner 1 and for proof that they were legally married counsel for petitioners had placed reliance upon a certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, and further a certificate of registration of marriage as well as certain photographs. An FIR was lodged against petitioner 1 by the father of corpus and the investigation was undergoing.

The Court stated that the courts are flooded with the marriage certificates issued by different Arya Samaj Societies which have been seriously questioned during different proceedings by numerous High Courts of the country.

“The said institution has misused their beliefs in organizing the marriages without even considering genuineness of documents and since the marriage has not been registered, therefore, only on the basis of said certificate it cannot be deemed that the parties have married.”

Further, relying on Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., (1964) 5 SCR 86 and Kanu Sanyal v. Distt. Magistrate, (1973) 2 SCC 674, the Court reiterated that habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. It cannot be issued as a right but only on reasonable grounds or probability.

The Court however reminding that the petitioners have other remedies available for the purpose under criminal and civil law, dismissed the petition finding it to be not maintainable. The Court clarified that in the present case the corpus is a major and an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner 1 by father of corpus and investigation was undergoing, therefore, there is no case of illegal detention.

[Bhola Singh v. State of U.P., Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. – 637 of 2022, decided on 31-08-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Dharam Veer Singh, Advocate, Counsel for the Petitioner;

Sunil Srivastava, Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent.


*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.