Hindu Marriage Not Proven By Mere Certificate Of Arya Samaj/ Registrar, Must Show Saptapadi Or Other Rites: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir or the Registrar of Hindu Marriages does not by itself prove marriage between parties. It was held that the one claiming the factum of marriage must produce evidence/ witnesses showing that Saptapadi and other rites and customs of Hindu marriage under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were performed.

The bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed,

“On performance of Saptapadi in a Hindu marriage, according to 'Rig Veda', after completing the seventh step (Saptapadi) the bridegroom says to his bride, "with seven steps we have become friends (sakha). May I attain to friendship with thee; may I not be separated from they friendship." Therefore, this ceremony is necessary unless of course it is proved that it is not the custom in a particular area.”

Factual Background

Appellant was a minor when she was taken to the respondent who was a 'Guru' giving religious discourses at his residence in Lucknow. Except her father, all family members believed in the Guru who gave certain 'special prasad' after the discourse which made people loose normal consciousness.

It was alleged that Respondent called the appellant's mother along with the appellant on the pretext of singing some documents on what they presumed to be Gurupurnima. On 05.08.2009, when the appellant was merely 18 years and 12 days old, the respondent called appellant's father and informed him that he had married the appellant on 05.07.2009 and got the marriage registered on 03.08.2009. A police complaint was lodged against the respondent under Sections 419, 420, 496 IPC.

Since the appellant never consented to the marriage, she filed a suit under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage void, whereas the respondent filed a suit under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court observed that there were contradictions in the statements of various witnesses. However, the appellant's father in his criminal complaint had stated that the appellant was taken to the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar's Office for marriage. Appellant had claimed that she was forced into signing papers after consuming the 'prasad'. The Family Court observed that no medical examination was done if the appellant felt something fishy after taking the prasad and both the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar's Office were not secluded places where the respondent could have forcefully gotten anything done.

The suit under Section 12 was dismissed on grounds that the appellant and her mother could not prove that they were not present at the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar's Office, and being educated, they knew what they were signing. However, regarding the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the Family Court only observed that the respondent was willing to take the appellant as his wife and accordingly, the suit was decreed.

Challenging the order of the Family Court, the counsel for appellant argued that marriageable was voidable as the marriage and its registration were fraudulent acts on part of the respondent. Per Contra, counsel for respondent contended that them being educated ladies would not have gone to the Arya Samaj Temple and the Registrar's Office without free consent.

High Court Verdict

The questions for consideration of the High Court were whether any marriage was solemnized between the parties under Section 7 of the Act and whether such marriage was with free will and consent of the appellant or fraudulently. If the marriage was valid, the Court questioned whether the appellant could withdraw from the society of the respondent or the decree for restitution of conjugal rights could be issued.

The Court termed the Trial Court's reliance on the dates for determining Gurupurnima as the Trial Court having “missed the woods for the trees.” The Court observed that the appellant never admitted to the marriage with the respondent as her Hindu customs and alleged that her signatures were fraudulently taken on paper which were used for marriage. It was held that such allegations cannot be considered admission towards marriage between the parties or their relationship as husband and wife.

The Court held that the Trial Court erred in the relying on the FIR which was lodged by the father of the appellant as he was not present when the alleged ceremony is said to have taken place. Therefore, it was held that any statement made by the father in his FIR will not bind the appellant or her mother.

In view of the constant and consistent denial of marriage by the appellant, the Court held that the burden to prove that marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs was on the respondent who claimed such facts.

The Court held that a marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir does not prove that marriage had been performed according to Hindu rites and customs. It was held that the respondent had failed to produce any witness/ evidence to show that marriage had been performed in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs.

Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that a Hindu Marriage may be solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs which includes Saptapadi, bride and groom taking seven steps around the sacred fire.

The Court observed that neither in the application for restitution of conjugal rites nor in his response to the suit under Section 12, the respondent had pleaded that marriage was performed according to Section 7 of the Act.

The Court relied on Dolly Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal where the Supreme Court held that a certificate of marriage issued by Vadik Jankalayan Samiti under the U.P. Registration Rules, 2017 will not be valid unless marriage has taken place according to Section 7 and 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was held that

“In the absence of there being any such marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, a certificate issued in that regard by any entity is of no legal consequence. Further, any registration of a marriage which has not at all taken place under Section 8 of the Act and as per the rules made by the State Government would not be evidence of a Hindu marriage and also does not confer the status of a husband and a wife to a couple.”

The bench headed by Justice Roy held that the certificate of marriage issued by Arya Samaj Mandir does not prove marriage by itself unless Saptapadi is proved to have been performed.

“the Certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow does not by itself prove marriage between the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant. None of the certificates mention about the ceremonies which were performed. Merely mentioning that marriage was performed as per vaidik rites itself does not prove marriage between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant, especially as, document C-47 does not bear signature of the appellant or her mother.”

Further, the Court held that the certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages only relied on the certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir and no performance of marriage as per Hindu rites and customs was indicated therein. Accordingly, the certificate cannot be used as evidence for declaration of valid marriage between the parties.

Accordingly, the Court held that no marriage had taken place between the parties “as, prerequisites of a valid marriage in the form of customary rites and ceremonies required for a Hindu marriage were never performed and the said certificates have no significance in the eyes of law and do not by themselves prove such marriage.” The suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.

Case Title: Shruti Agnihotri vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 436 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 436

Counsel for Appellant: Sunieta Ojha

Counsel for Respondent: Seema Kashyap

Click Here To Read/Download Order