BANGALORE: Upalokayukta G. Patri Basavana Goud, has asked the State Government to reconsider its decision to reject his recommendation to take action against the headquarter sub-registrar of Bangalore North Taluk.

Mr. Goud has said this in response to the letter of the Under Secretary of Revenue Department Ramesh K. Jagirdar rejecting his recommendation for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Bhoja Naik, who allegedly registered a deed of cancellation of marriage.

In a letter to Revenue Secretary Aravind Risbud, Mr. Goud said on Tuesday that he would be forced to refer the matter to Governor T.N. Chaturvedi if the State Government sticks to its stand.

Facts of the case

In April 2005, Roopadevi filed a complaint with the Upalokayukta alleging that Mr. Naik had registered a deed of cancellation for annulling her marriage with Lokesh, which was conducted in February 2005.

The marriage was registered before the Registrar of Marriages. She alleged that the official registered the deed of cancellation after receiving Rs. 10,000 from her husband. The Upalokayukta took up the investigation under Section 9 of Karnataka Lokayukta Act. In his report to the State Government under Section 12 (3) of the Lokayukta Act, Mr. Goud said the act of the official in cancelling the marriage certificate was against the public policy of discouraging dissolution of marriage by the act of parties.

Legal position

The Hindu Marriage Act, the personal law by which the parties were governed, has no provision to make registration of marriage mandatory as on that date.

The Marriage Act provides for dissolution of marriage by way of divorce. But there is no provision anywhere in the Act for cancellation of marriages, which has been registered under Rule 4 of Registration of Hindu Marriage (Karnataka) Rules, 1966.

Under no circumstances there can be any deed of cancellation of such marriage registration even by the Registrar of Marriages.

The official ought to have refused to register the document, which was against the public policy, he said.

The official, he added, had acted in contrary to the provisions of Rule 123 of Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965.

The rule provides that whenever any document is sought to be cancelled or revoked of the previous document, such a document should relate to document, which has been registered in the same office or in the register of book maintained in the said office.

In the instant case, the document sought to be registered was the one related to cancellation of document registered by the Registrar of Marriage.

By registering the deed of cancellation the Sub-Registrar had violated the rules prescribed for cancellation.

The Upalokayukta concluded that the Sub-Registrar had exceeded his power and there was dereliction of duty.

The Sub-Registrar has acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, which was a violation of Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

In the letter dated May 23, 2005, the Upalokayukta asked the State Government to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the Sub-Registrar.

Mr. Jagirdar, the Under Secretary of Revenue Department, in his letter of February 28, refused to act on the recommendation on the ground that there was a mismatch between the explanation of the Sub-Registrar and the finding of Upalokayukta.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail