Punjab & Haryana HC allows wife to appear via video conference before Marriage Officer for registration of marriage under Special Marriage Act

The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed a couple to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act (Act) by permitting the wife to appear before the Marriage Officer through video conference from United States of America (Ami Ranjan and Anr. v. State of Haryana).A Division Bench of Justices Ritu Bahari and Archana Puri said that the presence of the wife can be secured through video conference and she can appear either from Indian High Commission or from a designated hospital in United States of America (USA). .The Court further noted that developments in technology has allowed for various legal processes to happen through internet and registration of marriage of spouses should also be addressed keeping in mind these changes. It is open to evolve a suitable mechanism with a mix of technology by incorporating video-conferencing, authentication of identities by Embassies, and attestation of signatures in a similar manner, the Court added. .The court also explained that the procedure contemplated under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act can implemented through video conference."In this case, presence of Misha Verma (wife) can be secured through video conferencing and presence of husband, Ami Ranjan and three witnesses can be marked by their appearance in the office of Registrar of Marriages. Then, the certificate of marriage can be issued on doing verification of facts as contemplated under Sections 15 and 16 of the Special Marriage Act. Once, the marriage certificate is issued, it can be made part of the public record under Section 47 of the Act by entering it into the Marriage Certificate Book. There shall be no violation of Section 47 of the Act," the order said. .The Court was dealing with an appeal against the Single-judge bench decision, which held that marriage certificate cannot be issued through video conferencing, as 'physical appearance' of the parties is necessary under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. .The appeal was filed against the order of a single-judge of the High Court which rejected the prayer of the parties to register their marriage through video-conference. The first motion was allowed through video conferencing mode when the husband was permitted to file application through video conference. But when a request was processed for the second motion, the same was rejected by the Marriage officer and the single-judge of the High Court. The husband was working in United Kingdom but currently residing in India while his wife was employed at Virginia University School of Medicine as Resident Doctor.They had solemnized their marriage on December 7, 2019 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the presence of their respective families at Gurugram (Haryana). After marriage, both of them returned back to their respective work places in United Kingdom and United States on December 10, 2019 and December 15, 2019 respectively. An application for registration of their marriage was filed before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Marriage Officer, Gurugram on January 29, 2020.In the meantime, due to spread of COVID-19 Pandemic, the appellants could not return to India. Even, the Government of India had imposed a nation wide lock-down on March 24, 2020. Due to that, the husband made an application dated August 7, 2020 to the Marriage Officer with a request that the second motion hearing may also be conducted through video conference. Meanwhile, though the appellant-husband could go to USA to meet his wife after restrictions were eased, he was required to attach a marriage certificate along with an application for obtaining VISA. On account of lack of marriage certificate, parties preferred the appeal before the High Court. .The counsel for the appellants referred to various judicial precedents wherein courts had allowed registration of marriage through video conference. Reliance was placed on a judgement passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Jharkhand in Upasana Bali and another vs. State of Jharkhand wherein the court had observed that presence of the parties could be secured through video conference in specific cases, where such procedure requires because of the peculiar facts of such cases. On the other side, Additional Advocate General of Haryana, Hitesh Pandit, contended that all the procedure related to registration has to be followed in presence of the marriage officer and as per Sections 15, 16, 18 and 47 of the Special Marriage Act, an application for registration of marriage has to be signed by both the parties and thereafter, the Marriage Officer has to give public notice. "As per the Act, signatures of both the parties have to be there in the application for registration of the marriage and only thereafter, enquiry as per Section 16 of the Act starts. Hence, merely because the appellants are working in foreign countries and their working conditions or their personal compulsions render it difficult to be present before the Marriage Officer cannot be make a ground to overlook the provisions of law," it was submitted. .In this regard, the State placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Deepak Krishan and another v. District Registrar, Ernakulam and Sarala Baby v. State of Kerala..The Court rejected the submissions of the State observing that both the cases adverted to by the Additional AG will not apply to the present one. It was observed that in Deepak Krishan's case, the issue was regarding the reduction of 30 days' time as per Section 15 of the Act and in Sarlala Baby's case, the prayer made was for totally exempting the presence of parties before the Marriage Officer.While allowing the appeal of the Husband, the court overruled the single-judge decision and held that since first motion was allowed through video conferencing, the wife can mark her presence through the same for second motion. "Since the Marriage Officer had permitted appellant No.1- Ami Ranjan to file the application through video conference at the stage of first motion, he can now proceed to register the marriage after 30 days as per Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. (Presence of appellant No.2-Misha Verma can be secured through video conferencing," the Court ordered. .The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the single-judge. Appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Navaniti Prasad, Advocate Mohit Kumar Bafna and Advocate Nitin Kant Setia and Additional A.G appeared for the State. .[Read Order]