Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SEEMA versus ASHWANI KUMAR

Decided
15 April 2005
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 649 · 2005 INSC 211

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Issue notice. Issue notice on the application for ex-parte stay also.

p. 649, margin E

There shall be interim stay of proceedings in Matrimonial Suit No. 104 of 2004 entitled Ashwani Kumar v. Seema, pending before Learned Addi. District Judge, Delhi.

p. 649, margin F

During the hearing of this petition, it appeared to us that in the absence of records relating to dates of marriages and parties to the marriage, problems. come up which have far-reaching consequences. We, therefore, request learned Solicitor General to consider whether Government orders by way of executive instructins can be issued, on the basis of directions of this Court, to various States and Union Territories to authorise officials specifically to keep record 649. of marriages so that they can be placed as evidence in different proceedings if the necessity arises. Learned Solicitor General submitted that there may be necessity of a suitable legislation in this regard as the Government Orders/ executive instructions may not suffer. We are of the view that until a suitable legislation is made, the Government Order/executive instructions can. be made enforceable in terms of the orders of this Court. These may be implemented where there is no statutory prescription for recording/registering the marriage, and may be done as an additional measure when there is any such prescription.

pp. 649–650, margin F

We have also requested Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. to assist us in this matter. If learned Solicitor General feels and if so advised, he may require the State Governments regard and the Union Territories to place their views in this regard before him and this Court so that appropriate directions can be issued. A copy of our order be handed over to learned Solicitor General and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. for necessary steps in this matter. R.P. Notice issued.

p. 650, margin B