Madras High CourtWP/11972/2018dismissed as withdrawal

Priyanka B v. The Inspector General Of

2019-08-19Honourable Mr Justice P.D.Audikesavalu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.08.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 11972 of 2018 Priyanka ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registrar, The Inspector General of Registration, No. 11 Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2. The District Registrar, Integrated Registrar's Office , Veppamaram Street, Velapadi, Vellore, Tamil Nadu - 632 001.

3. The District Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Head Quarter, Tiruvannamalai District - 606 601.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bagadur Street, Kottaimedu, Polur Town, Tiruvannamalai District - 606 803.

5. The Inspector of Police, F-1 Kalasapakkam Police Station, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District.

6. The Sub Registrar, Sub Register Office, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District - 606 751.

7. M. Kumar ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records with reference to the Marriage Registration Certificate No.23/2018 dated 14.02.2018 issued by the Sixth Respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s. Shaikh Mehrunisa For Respondents : Mr. T.M. Pappiah (For R1, R2 & R6) Special Government Pleader

: Mr. M. Karthikeyan (For R3 to R5) Additional Government Pleader : Mr. G. Dilipkumar (For R7)

O R D E R

When it is pointed out that it has not been shown that the Registering Authority has power to annul a marriage and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gullipilli Sowria Raj -vsBandaru Pavani alias Gullipiolli Pavani [(2009) 1 SCC 714] has held that mere registration would not validate a marriage and that the Petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Family Court to obtain a decree for declaration that there is no marital relationship between the Petitioner and the Fourth Respondent in the light of the interpretation of Section 7(1)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in Balram Yadav -vs- Fulmaniya Yadav [(2016) 13 SCC 308], Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to resort to the same and he has made an endorsement to that effect, which is recorded. 2.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To