- (1.) Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed by the petitioners seeking a direction against the respondent-Authority for correction of the age of the petitioners and spelling of the name of petitioner No.1, as mentioned in the letter at Annexure-G to the petition, being Special Civil Application No.16956 of 2007.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage of the petitioners came to be registered on 7th March, 2005 and the memorandum was filed at Sr. No.111 of 2005 on Page 120 of Volume-47 of the register of marriage maintained under the Bombay Registration of Marriage Act, 1953, that some clerical mistakes had crept in the birth date of petitioner No.2, which is recorded as 19th May, 1959 and thus, on the date of registration, petitioner No.2 had completed 46 years, however, in the column of age of the bridegroom, it is shown as 44 years. Likewise, the birth date of petitioner No.1 is 3rd July, 1978 and on the date of the marriage, her age was 26 years. However, in the column of age of the bride, it is mentioned as 28 years. At the same time, the name of the petitioner, which spells as SVijyaben , has been incorrectly spelled as SVijayaben in the column of the name of the bride. The petitioners, therefore, addressed a letter to the Registering Officer to rectify the mistake on 2nd April, 2007, which was in the form of notice by the Advocate, along with relevant documentary evidence in the form of the school leaving certificate and certificate granted by the birth registering authority. However, the Sub-Registrar, Registrar of Marriages, Bhuj, District-Kutch, vide letter dated 24th May, 2007, informed the petitioners that no correction can be made in the memorandum of marriage; it was, however, kept open for the applicants to file a new form of marriage after paying the requisite stamp duty and thereafter, it will be registered with the new number and date, etc. Being aggrieved by the said decision dated 24th May, 2007 rendered by the Sub-Registrar, the petitioners are before this Court.
(3.) Shri K. R. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, relying upon the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886, has contended that the Act provides for registration of marriage and section 28 of the Act provides for correction in the register and marginal correction can be made provided the Registrar is satisfied that there is a mistake. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has also relied upon the provisions of the Bombay Registration of Marriages Act, 1953 and the Rules framed thereunder, and more particularly, Rule-(8).;