Notary Not Supposed to Perform the Marriage or Grant Divorce: MP High Court

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

An observation was made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while it was providing strict guidelines to be issued to the notaries and oath commissioners for not executing such type of deed, failing which their license would be terminated.

As per the Court,

The job of the Notary is defined under the Notary Act. He is not supposed to perform the marriage by executing documents. Neither the Notary is authorized to perform the marriage nor competent to execute the divorce deed.”

A Bail Petition was filed by one Mr. Mukesh, who got arrested for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The hearing was happening before a single bench of Justice Vivek Rusia.

A written complaint was submitted by the complainant, Jitendra, who has filed the complaint in Police Station Jaora City on September 16, 2020, against Gayatribai, Nageshwar, and Omprakash. It was alleged that with common intention, these three persons had performed Jitendra’s Marriage with Gayatribai, but after 5-6 days of marriage, Gayatribai fled from his house with all her belongings. Jitendra gave Rs 1,50,000 to the applicant for the marriage and when he enquired about Gayatribai from the applicant, the applicant threatened to falsely implicate him in a rape case.

The police had recovered stamp papers during the investigation and arrested Gayatribai, Nageshwar, and Omprakash, and their statements were also recorded by the Police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

As per the Counsel’s Applicant, the applicant was not aware of the past antecedents of Gayatribai, he only introduced Gayatribai to the complainant for marriage and thereafter, he does not know the whereabouts of her, and therefore he is eligible to get bail. In response, the Counsel for the state said that the applicant took Rs 1,50,000 from the complainant through a notary who is not authorized to perform the marriage and he also had signed on the marriage agreement as a witness, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.

Hearing both sides, the court said,

Had he (applicant) properly guided and refused to execute the marriage agreement to the complainant, then the present offence would not have been committed. The Law Department of the State is required to look into these matters as to how Notaries and Oath Commissioners are involving themselves in executing the document in respect of the marriage, divorce, etc, which are not permissible under the law.”

“Not only the accused persons who conspired in performing the forged marriage of the complainant but the notary who executed the marriage agreement is also equally responsible in this case” the court remarked while granting bail to the applicant upon furnishing a personal bond of the sum of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

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

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -