'Kanyadan' Ceremony Not Essential For Solemnization Of A Marriage As Per Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the ceremony of Kanyadan is not essential for the solemnization of a Hindu marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act.

"Thus, Hindu Marriage Act merely provides saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage and it does not provide that the ceremony of kanyadan is essential for solemnization of a Hindu marriage," a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed.

The Court was essentially dealing with a revision plea filed by one Ashutosh Yadav challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in a Sessions Trial whereby an application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 CrPC for recalling two PWs had been rejected.

Before the HC, the Counsel for the revisionist submitted that there were some contradictions between the statements given by P.W.-1 in her examination-in-chief and in her cross-examination, which can only be clarified by re-examination of P.W.-1 and her father-P.W.2. 

In the impugned order, the trial court recorded the contention of the revisionist that the marriage certificate filed by the prosecution mentions that the marriage was solemnized in February 2015 per Hindu rites and rituals, as per which, Kanyadan is an essential ritual.

It was the stand of the revisionist that to ascertain this fact, a re-examination of P.W.-2 is necessary.

Against the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, the High Court, at the outset noted that as per Section 311 CrPC, the Court is empowered to summon any witness in case it is essential for a just decision of the case.

However, upon further consideration, the High Court observed that the revisionist wanted to re-examine P.W.-1 and her father due to discrepancies noted between P.W.-1's statements during her initial examination and her subsequent cross-examination. The Court clarified that such discrepancies alone do not warrant the recall of witnesses or the summoning of additional witnesses.

Additionally, the Court noted that the revisionist sought to re-examine these witnesses to establish whether the Kanyadan ceremony had been conducted or not. Regarding this matter, the Court referred to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which outlines the ceremonies required for a Hindu marriage.

Notably, the Court emphasized that the Kanyadan ceremony is not deemed essential for the valid solemnization of a Hindu marriage as per the said provision of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the re-examination of the prosecution witnesses concerning the performance of the Kanyadan ritual was not necessary for a just decision of the case and, therefore, witnesses cannot be summoned under Section 311 CrPC for proving this fact.

"There can be no denial of the fact that this Court has ample power to summon any witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the power cannot be exercised in a casual manner on the mere asking of a litigant. This power has to be exercised merely only when it is essential to summon a witness for a just decision of a case," the Court further remarked.

Consequently, noting that the fact which is sought to be proved by the recall of the witnesses is not material for a just decision of the case, the Court upheld the trial court's order and dismissed the revision plea.

Case title - Ashutosh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 296 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216

Click Here To Read/Download Order